I was watching this spy movie where a general was talking about "turning" all kinds of nationalities to their cause. And it got me thinking: what is the real difference between them? Nationalities, I mean. When guys like Snowden or Manning spill out secrets to the press, what are they betraying, and to whom? When a spy sells the secrets of his country to other spies, from another country, what is really at stake?

The problem, as I see it, are borders. I've seen borders in my life. I may leave my city block and move towards the poorer ones. There is a border there, not physical, but social. Same applies to when I leave town and go into the country. You never know exactly when the city ends and the country begins, but the border exists. I've also passed between country borders. Spent a lot more time and money, of course, in order to do that - one has to have the proper papers and documents and IDs - but I've never seen a smaller difference between the people from one side and the other as I have seen with national borders. Of course, one country may be a lot richer overall than the other. See Mexico and the US, for example, as a brutal example, but everywhere I went I saw people from one side infiltrated, working or visiting, the other side. When you take those people into account, the border blurs.

Is Snowden more of an American than he is a conscientious member of the human race? He says no. Is a British spy selling secrets to the Russians more of a British than he is a spy? I would bet no. At least he doesn't feel that way, for sure. Who is the owner of secrets spilled? The country, one says... What does that mean? The land? The buildings? The people? Are the people really so different as to need those secrets? Are the borders between nations really necessary?

I really didn't mean to make this a long post. My point, as always rather unclear, is that I am more alike to software developers in Russia and the US than I am with a lot of my countrymen. The nationality of a person doesn't really matter except to the people that manage that nationality. They are the one that put those borders there in the first place and they are the ones that consider they have ownership of a country's secrets. Normal people usually don't give a damn. Am I very different from a Muslim terrorist? Yes I am, but that difference has been nurtured and created by these border managers. I do have to wonder, if those borders weren't there, would the terrorist still exist?

What is the modern purpose of borders anymore? I have no idea, frankly. Why can't I just move around wherever I want, speak the language I like, settle where I have space and work and, maybe, protect the secret of the people that employ me, rather than of those that are employed by me - like a government. What would happen if borders would suddenly be abolished, everywhere? I just don't know. It seems to me a lot of noise, about nothing.

Today was my last day at the large corporation I was employed at. I quit for several reasons, but mainly because the project I was working on wasn't challenging at all. So one has to wonder: how did I get to be bored at work when only two years ago I was so happy to be hired by one of the best employers in Bucharest to work on an exciting new project? And the answer is : misrepresentation. I've titled the post thus because I sincerely think very few people, if any, wanted to harm me or lie to me or take advantage of me and yet the thing I was hired for changed and shifted until I became annoying for proposing ways of improving the project and asking for work. Let me take you from the beginning and you will see what I mean.

At the end of March 2011 I was working at a medium sized company, a place where there were some interesting projects, but the work ethic and methodology was really lacking. I had been working there for about two years and I was starting to get annoyed for not getting any recognition in the face of obvious personal improvement. And in my vulnerable state I was head-hunted by a human resources person from this major American corporation who wanted me to work on a project for them. I said I will give it a try, personally believing that I will either not like the place, not like the money or, even more probable, they will not think me worthy of the job. See where I am getting with this? I was already sold on the concept of a new job there and I didn't want to get disappointed, so I was playing down my chances. It seems that, after one telephonic interview, a series of six consecutive face to face interviews and another one with the head of the company, I was good enough for them. All I had to do was negotiate the wage. I was rather disappointed with the way the then current place of employment was handling salary increases (I've gotten only one raise, 2.25% in size, in two years) so I had a sum in mind that I would consider the minimum I would get in the new place of employment. You see, I am not a very good negotiator, I hate haggling, so I just drew a line in the sand and said that no one will push me over it. I was so serious when I went to talk to them... they proposed a sum that was more than 10% higher than what I was willing to fight for. Surprised, I accepted. Now all I had to do is wait for a call to tell me how we would proceed. It was near my birthday and I thought "Wow! What a nice present!".

At this point I'd had contact with the HR girl, who was very nice, been interviewed by a lot of people, both technical and not, also very nice, and even passed by the head honcho of the company who played a little game with me when we met, by pretending to be a very arrogant and annoying person while the top HR specialist was watching me with a stern expression. I am kind of proud of myself to have seen through their ruse, but I think they did try too hard. No one can be such an idiot to consider refactoring useless because you write good code from the beginning, right? Anyway, the guy who was supposed to be manager gave me a call the first week, told me there was some restructuring going on in the company, that we were still on and that I had to wait. He was nice too. He called me every week for about three months to tell me we were still on, while I was sweating bullets because I had already announced in my company that I was going to leave so that they can prepare for my absence, and they were starting to look at me suspiciously: I wasn't going anywhere. At the time my soon to be manager said he was going in holiday and that another guy was going to call me. No one did for more than two weeks. So I called them!

Now, you see, the HR girl was genuinely believing that she would offer me a better job and my prospective manager was also convinced he wanted me in his team and that we would work great together, they all wanted was best for them and me! So imagine my shock when I called and the new guy told me "Oh, you still wanted to get hired? I had understood that you refused the job". No, you moron, I did not. I politely asked for more information only to find out that they had no more positions as full employees, a limitation that had come from the US corporate headquarters, and that they could only offer me a consultancy job. Devastated, I asked what that meant. It meant I didn't get company stock as a bonus, but I was only paid the sum we had already negotiated. I didn't know about employee benefits when I got the job and I didn't really care for them, so I said yes. It was going to be a temporary measure until more hiring positions were opened.

The company had gone through a "reorg" (I was to meet with a lot of new acronyms and made up words in the new job, much to my chagrin - this particular one meant "reorganizing") and I was not to work under the guy who talked to me week to week, but under the new guy, the one that didn't know if I wanted the job or not. But he seemed genuinely nice and motivated, very enthusiastic about the new project, an administration web UI made in ASP.Net MVC. He asked me if I knew anything about the project. I said no. Why would I care about a project if I don't know if I would be hired or not. He seemed disappointed, but proceeded to explain what the project did and how great it was going to be, as it was meant to replace the old thing, made in ASP.Net in Visual Basic... by monkeys.

You see, he had the best of intentions as well, he was technical, willing to create something exciting and challenging and convinced that I would fit in their team and help with this new project made with new technology. When I finally got my hands on code and started actually working, the project was dead in the water. They had decided instead (and by they I mean some schmuck in US, not the people actually working on it) to just refactor the old admin and continue on. Different from what you may think, I was actually excited. In my head I had this tool that I would be working on to transform all VB.Net 2.0 code into C#.Net 4.0, become the hero of all, and create a formal framework of refactoring code from one language to the other. (If you don't know the terms here, just imagine I wanted to replace wood with stone so that the big bad wolf would not blow the house in). Alas, it was not to be. "Too risky" they call it when they feel afraid. I was yet to understand that in a large corporation responsibility dilutes until it becomes nothing. The only tangible thing becomes blame, which replaces responsibility and exterminates creativity and stifles initiative.

You see, like all the actors in this play, I too had good intentions. The first code I wrote was to fix some bugs that I had noticed in a bit of code related to online shopping. The customers had also noticed this bug and had found complex methods to get around it. While my fix solved the initial problem, it also broke any such method and, as I was a rookie in the formal way of doing things in the new company, the fix wasn't even bug free. From that time I was labelled "dangerous", from the initial problems with understanding the project and also my vocal way of expressing what I thought of leaving a project unstructured and buggy. Well, in hindsight, I have to agree that I wouldn't have felt a lot of love for someone calling me an idiot. Even if I were... especially if I were. Anyway, from this little incident you might have already guessed that a complete overhaul of the code (wood to stone) was out of the question. The powers that be had decided that starship Enterprise was to stay home, no bold missions for it.

I could go on with details, but you are probably already bored. Enough to say that I had my first real experience with Scrum there, a way in which all people had a role, each development cycle had phases that were followed in order and documented along the way, a system which, in time, would collect enough statistical data about the team so that it could predict development speed. All it needed for that was a team that would remain constant. Due to repeated reorg-ing my team had never the same structure for more than two or three months. The general (not per project, overall) company policy would shift radically, often completely in the opposite direction, every six months at most. Plans were set in motion, then discarded before reaching anywhere; performance metrics were created to measure project progress, only to be changed at the next strategic hiccup. It was clear that this was going nowhere like that and, instead of changing their way of constantly shivering in fear, they decided to close the project.

Only you see, the project earned money. Not a lot, but enough to count. There are tens of thousands of people paying for the service and hosting sites on it. You can't shut down a project like this. So they invented yet another expression "sustainability mode", to express the way they intended to zombify the project that they had advertised to clients and developers alike like the next cool thing that would solve all problems. I felt cheated and I could only imagine how clients that paid money instead of receiving them felt. There is an expression "the way to Hell is paved with good intentions". All the people - there were 70 developers and testers on the project and God knows how many managers and support staff - had the best intentions. We achieved a highway to Hell. Oh, and by the way, I never really got hired as a full employee. I remained "temporary" a consultant for the full length of my work there.

So what is the outcome of all of this? Two years of my life are gone. I have learned some things, but in the meantime lost a lot of my initial enthusiasm towards development. I stopped reading technical blogs and only spent my days thinking of the tasks ahead, like a good little robot. I've earned a lot more money, many of which I saved in the bank. I gained ten kilos (that's about 20 pounds, for you metrically challenged folk). I almost made my wife divorce me once, but we got over it. I've made some good friends. I learned to play chess a little better. I am not yet sure if the good balances the bad. Now I have found a new job opportunity, one that is even better paid. I only hope it will not be equally as depressing.

Was I wrong to be so optimistic about getting hired, as I am now, I guess, because it led to disappointment? Better to have loved and lost, I say. Were the people that misrepresented themselves and the project I was to work on wrong? I don't think so, I think they were equally optimistic and got equally disappointed. Was it wrong to have better expectations from the world? Prepare for the worst, but expect the best, I say. So yet again, I can't really blame anyone in the Romanian office and it is difficult to point the finger at the guys in the US as well. And yet, this is the result...

As I was saying in a previous post, there seem to be a lot of series and films in the Star Trek universe that are fan made. I have just finished watching Star Trek: Hidden Frontier and I have to say I was impressed. The show is by no means a masterpiece of cinema, but the effort and dedication were clearly great and applaudable.

Now, when you go to the Hidden Frontier link and you start watching from season 1, a warning pops up, inviting you to watch a more recent episode rather than starting from the beginning. And that is because season 1 was ridiculous and the show only started to look like something watchable somewhere in season 5 or 6. You see, Hidden Frontier is filmed exclusively in front of a green screen and all the décor is borrowed from existing Star Trek shows. The first Hidden Frontier season is low resolution, bad green screen capture and incredible bad acting. Does it make it any less remarkable? No. I have to say that, leaving the acting prowess of people that are clearly not actors aside, the last two seasons were almost on par with the real thing. The greenish contours are still there, but less visible, the 3-D models are better (at least imperial star fighters don't appear in battle scenes as in the first seasons), the actors are better. I would call it a success, although I don't have many friends who would be as enthusiastic watching it.

There are other series and films in the same universe. Star Trek: Odyssey will be next on my list. What really surprised me is that the scripts were very like Star Trek Next Generation and Voyager, but their quality did not improve with time. I was expecting a bunch of ST geeks to be able to make complex and interesting stories, the kind of stories that are usually not allowed on TV due to violence, moral complexity or scientific knowhow needed to understand the script. It was not to be. Also, they made this attempt to balance the Star Trek universe by bringing in gay romance and kisses. It would have been all good if they didn't also almost ignore any romance between girls and boys. It really is ridiculous how a single boy gets into at least three relationships, while the only straight love stories seem to be between a Vulcan and a human and between two old people. Being biased in the other direction doesn't bring balance, you know.

So all in all I recommend this show as a new experience, something to give us hope that ordinary people can still create and distribute independently, and a monument to the power of fans.

I am taking advantage of the switch to the summer season for TV series to mark the changes.



Let's start with the already described ones:

• Doctor Who - despite my efforts, Doctor Who becomes less watchable by the season, so I removed the 'want'. Now Math Smith has announced he is to leave the show.
• Torchwood - A new show appeared called Frankie and starring Eve Myles, the frontwoman for Torchwood. This might mean a permanent end to the concept.
• Criminal Minds - it's a neverending story, this. Three seasons of episodes have piled up. I doubt I will ever watch them, but hope yet remains.
• Dexter - season 8 of the series will be the last. It's official. The launch date is June 30, 2013.
• True Blood - June 16, 2013 is the release date. The trailer seems to imply something epic.
• The Good Wife - the show continues to be good relative quality. My wife asked for it specifically after the end of the first halfseason of the year.
• Haven - The third season is over, a fourth was announced. The ending of the third season leaves me with few expectations.
• Falling Skies - season three will start on June 9, 2013. It's one of those that are just good and sci-fi enough to keep watching.
• Southpark - season 17 starts on September 2013. Can't wait.
• The Killing - still on my watch list, haven't started watching it.
• Suits - third season is about to start. It doesn't make much sense, but I like it. Release date for the third season: July 16.
• Breaking Bad - There is still one half of the last season starting July 2013. This will end the show. Maybe then I will watch it all to see what happened.
• Californication - Season 6 was really lame. There will be a seventh one, date unannounced, but who cares anymore?
• Homeland - Season three is announced to start on September 29, 2013. I can't empathise with ANY of the characters, but I like it.
• The Walking Dead - the season three finale was pretty intense, if a bit rushed. Andrea finally died! Yes! And Carl is more and more awesome by the day, albeit a little psychopathic.
• Game of Thrones - two more episodes from the third season. The show maintains its good quality. I wonder what will happen when they get to the end of the books and R.R.Martin has still not finished (or started) another book.
• Mad Men - Season six is not as great as I have expected. Characters I liked get pissed upon and those I don't get back to main status. And Don annoys the hell out of me. Who could get bored of Jessica Paré?!
• Misfits - the show has been renewed for a fifth season. I will watch it, but I don't have much hopes for it.
• Sherlock - the third season of the series will begin probably late 2013. I liked it, even if a bit too... Moffaty? Benedict Cumberbatch is more and more present on the small and big screens.
• Spartacus - Vengeance - Finally watched the final season. It was good, I give it that, but in the end it had to be at least a bit faithful to the factual story, so Spartacus died. And also Manu Bennett had less and less of a presence in the series, which was too bad, since he is clearly the best actor there. Dustin Clare and Simon Merrells weren't bad either.
• My Babysitter's a Vampire - No news of a third season, and probably there won't be one.
• Continuum - the interaction of the characters has gained complexity, even if the characters themselves are a bit like cardboard. I like it.
• Copper - the second season of this cop drama starts late 2013. I liked the show and the characters.
• Longmire - the second season has started, with the main character being haunted (almost literally) by the mistakes and people of his past. I don't know if I like this new direction, but we'll see.
• The Newsroom - the second season starts on the 14th of July. It's too NewYorky for me.
• Arrow - I don't want it, but I watch it. Addiction is a horrible thing.
• Elementary - an interesting twist about the identity of Moriarty in the first season finale. And they arrest Moriarty as well. That only in the first season. What will they do with the second one, starting September 2013?
• Hatfields and McCoys - This American Civil War miniseries was filmed in Romania and stars Kevin Costner. I really wanted to see it, but didn't get around to it, yet.
• Hit and Miss - Probably a miniseries, if the first season is only 6 episodes. The synopsis is funny though: "A transsexual contract killer's life is thrown into turmoil when she discovers that she fathered a child eleven years earlier and must now mix her killer instincts with her parental responsibilities."
• Hunted - if the second season will even exist, it will be a reboot. Same character, different series. Melissa George is so insanely beautiful and plays in cool productions as well.
• Parade's End - another miniseries. The trailer looks really promising and I haven't read the book. As soon as I watch it you will know.
• Restless - actually, it was just a two part movie. It was fun to watch, but some of the elements in the film were hard to swallow. It was a war time story remember in the present. All the present time bit was bollocks. It did star Hayley Atwell, though, who is a foxy little Brit.
• Ripper Street - First season has 8 episodes and ended well. I like the show and I can't wait for the second season.
• The Fear - I've made the mistake to read reviews. Almost all negative. I won't watch this.
• Vegas - Vegas was cancelled. I liked it, that's why! Damn their idiotic audiences to hell!
• Wizards versus Aliens - there will be a second season, starting late 2013. I don't know if I will still watch it, but it's childish fun.
• Banshee - weird little modern western, its second season will start in January 2014.
• Bates Motel - A TV series based on Psycho. Haven't started watching it.
• Black Mirror - the second season was the same gritty, despondent, dark thing that the first season was, but the stories weren't that good, I think. Somehow it was difficult to watch and it was kind of downletting.
• Broadchurch - The second season of the series will start March 2014, but what is the point? Same character, completely different setting and story? This one pretty much started and ended all threads. I liked it, though, with that British quality of adding depth to characters, God bless them.
• Cracked - Another Canadian cop production. Cracked follows the newly formed Psych Crimes Unit within a Canadian police department set up by a psychiatrist in partnership with the police.
• Cult - the series was cancelled as it aired. I will probably not watch it.
• Golden Boy - The series follows the successful, meteoric rise — from age 26 to 34 — of Walter Clark, an ambitious cop who becomes the youngest Police Commissioner in New York City history.So, yeah, a police drama again, but it seems more than the usual crap. We'll see.
• House of Cards - I almost added a "want" status to this new series on the basis of Kevin Spacey being the lead actor alone. It is an adaptation of a previous BBC miniseries of the same name which is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. This also lends support to the theory that the show is good. People that started watching it liked it, as well. So, all I need is to start watching it.
• In the Flesh - I think this might be a gem in the mud. Some episodes are not great, but overall this series is an interesting one.
• Labyrinth - I don't know what to say about this show yet. John Hurt stars in it, it seems to involve a connection with the long lost Christian sect of Cathar and is a drama fantasy. People seem to like it well.
• Monday Mornings - The only medical drama in the recent past that I liked. It was cancelled, obviously.
• Motive - Motive is a Canadian police procedural drama following working-class single-mom Detective Flynn (Lehman) in her investigation of crimes. Each episode also reveals the killers and victims at the start of the show, unusual in police procedural dramas. Haven't watched it yet.
• Orphan Black - The show got me. It is about a bunch of (very good looking) female clones who did not know what they were until they met accidentally. It could have been a great show, but they left the science and logic aside and went for Desperate Clonewives meets every bad conspiracy theory TV series ever made.
• Privates - BBC One drama television series set in 1960 which follows the stories of eight privates who are part of the last intake of National Service, and their relationships with their officers and non-commissioned officers, civilian staff and families. Didn't start watching it, yet.
• Red Widow - a housewife from Northern California whose husband, a figure in organized crime, was killed. She has to continue his work to protect her family. Don't know how good it is yet.
• Scandal - an American political thriller television series created by Shonda Rhimes, of Grey's Anatomy fame. I fear the moment when I will present this to my wife and she might like it.
• The Americans - Keri Russell is the perfect American housewife from the 80's, only she is a Russian KGB agent and so is her husband! The series is interesting and the actors play well. I hope it doesn't go ballistic (pun intended) in order to secure audiences and thus lose any touch with reality.
• The Blue Rose - a New Zealand crime drama television series about some lowly clerks who join forces to fight the corporate corruption that caused the death of one of their colleagues.
• The Doctor Blake Mysteries - Australians have made a good TV drama here. An openminded doctor in a conservative little town has a sweet tooth for police investigation. The police chief likes him, most of the others despise his irreverence to the status quo. This prompted me to watch a similar Australian drama series called "Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries" which is about the same thing, only with a female detective in the 20's. Doctor Blake is better, though.
• The Following - watched a little of it. I might continue. I don't care much about the subject, but it was well done and acted.
• Twisted - A teen with a troubled past reconnects with his two female best friends from childhood. He becomes the prime suspect when a fellow student is surprisingly found dead in her home. Didn't start watching it, but it doesn't sound great.
• Utopia - a British conspiracy thriller that follows a small group of people who find themselves in possession of the manuscript sequel of a cult graphic novel called "The Utopia Experiments" which is rumoured to have predicted the worst disasters of the last century. This leads them to be targeted by an organisation known as 'The Network', which they must avoid to survive. Sounds interesting and has a high IMDb rating.
• Vikings - a Canadian-Irish historical drama television series, inspired by the epic sagas about the raiding, trading, and exploring Norsemen of early medieval Scandinavia. It follows the exploits of the legendary Viking chieftain Ragnar Lodbrok and his crew and family. Sounds cool, but I didn't look at it, yet. My friends watched it, though, and liked it.
• Wallander - There is to be a fourth season airing in 2014. I will watch it.

And now for new shows!

• Betas - a comedy show about four geeks trying to become entrepreneurs. It was a little too funny. It could have been a great drama. But think about it: I don't like comedies and I kind of enjoyed this one. Maybe it will turn out a good show.
• Da Vinci's Demons - Leonardo Da Vinci is young and pretty much a superhero. Besides making Gatling cannons, MIRVs, real time video, photography, independently flying mechanical birds, scuba diving and many others, he is obsessively looking for The Book of Leaves, in a time where mysticism seems as common (and valid) as scientific fact. Hard to believe, no connection to reality, but flamboyant enough to enjoy it. Think of it as a steampunk doctor House meets Sherlock Holmes. I know it's hard.
• Defiance - happy beyond belief that another sci-fi show went on the air, I was disappointed to see it just a bad western with a sci-fi paintcoat. I watch it, but it ain't great, partner!
• Frankie - a drama starring Eve Myles, the main actress from Torchwood. With John Barrowman playing in Arrow, I guess that means the end of Torchwood. Anyway, I haven't started watching Frankie, yet.
• Hannibal - a TV series based on the movies. Now, it could be interesting, but I doubt it. I have yet to start watching it.
• Hemlock Grove - a werewolf TV series. It seems the usual beautiful teen extravaganza, with little to show otherwise, but the mood was dark. I might still watch it.
• Les Revenants - a very cool idea that revolutionizes the zombie genre. The French had it, of course, and the Americans are now stealing it for a new show. But until then feast your eyes with the "naked redhead Gaul teens" version which, for good reason, is said to have a Lynchian Twin Peaks feel.
• Life of Crime - Another British miniseries. Short description: "A rookie cop is obsessed with tracking down the killer of a 15-year-old girl, who she hunts over the course of 28 years." I don't really think it's going to be great, but it stars Hayley Atwell, of babylicious fame.
• Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries - I've already mentioned this when I talked about Doctor Blake's Murder Mysteries. Both are pretty well done drama series and it seems the producers intend to alternate the two. Thus in 2014 we will probably watch season 2 of Miss Fisher, while the next year we'll be watching Doctor Blake. I do believe Doctor Blake's character to be of better quality. It manages to convey a lot of compassion and interest in the victims of the crimes, while Miss Fisher is merely doing it for the kicks.
• The Fall - It is a new police drama starring Dana Scully! "When the local police are unable to catch a serial killer who is terrorizing the populace of Belfast, Northern Ireland, a detective superintendent is brought in from London to head the investigation."
• The Politician's Husband - David Tennant, ladies and gentlemen, with Emily Watson as his wife. Both politicians, the wife always in the shadow of her husband's career. Now the roles get reversed. I have seen the first episode, though, and it was kind of boring.
• The Tomorrow People (1973-1979) - Now, this is the British version, from 1973. It is a children sci-fi series about children that have superpowers and they are chased by a shadowy organisation from the US. I wanted to see it because the Americans are doing a reboot in 2013. The problem is that the first was really rubbish: bad acting, bad stories, I fell asleep watching it! I really do hope there is nothing common to the new series except the name and the general idea.
• The Village - a BBC TV series written by Peter Moffat, it tells the story of life in a Derbyshire village through the eyes of a central character. Haven't started watching it, yet, but it doesn't sound very cool.
• Zombieland - you know the movie, right? This was supposed to be a TV series based on it. It was a comedy, though, and the characters were not funny and very hard to sympathize with. They only aired the pilot before it got cancelled.

A while ago I decided to comment on every cinema movie that I watch using the IMDb platform. I wanted to have a history of films I watched and also remember what they were about. (It might not happen to you, but there were at least three movies that I realized I had seen already only when the ending came). Also it would be interesting to revisit films I liked or hated and see what changed in my perspective during time. Certainly it happens this way with books, as you've seen in case of the book Dune, by Frank Herbert.

So today I went to see the list of my comments. They became rarer and rarer because I have many more responsibilities and also I am watching a lot of TV series, which I usually don't comment on. It is a list of 1075 movies, the first one being in the 27 of December 2004 and the last today, the 1st of June 2013. That's a difference of almost ten years, more exactly 3239 days. It amounts to a little less than a movie every three days. I realise that this is an enormous waste of time. Think about it, leaving all TV series aside (which at the moment take a lot of my time as well) I spend half an hour of every day on average just watching films. That's 2% of my total time, in which I include both sleep and work. And I don't even watch TV. If I did, I would have to factor in hours of commercials and channel switching, nature and science documentaries and news shows.

I believe this to be an addiction. I have difficulty even admitting this here, which lends credit to the idea. Moreover, I know it is an addiction, a total waste of time, but I have known it for a long time and I have never managed to stop. I never even got myself to attempt it. Extend this to the entire human race and it is a staggering waste of human time and life. If a disease would kill 2% of all human kind it will be called a pandemic, it would be called horrible, it would kill 140 million people. Add TV and you get a billion people dead. You can then add the time spent discussing movies and TV with friends and acquaintances and it just grows. How come something that serves little purpose becomes the biggest time killer of all time?

That being said, if you are interested in the latest movies I've seen, the list is in the left there, in the About me section. We can discuss them together! Oh, wait...

It is getting close to two years since I've been employed by a large international corporation and I've decided to write a blog entry describing my feelings towards this kind of work. This is not a rant against my employers, mind you, but an attempt to explain to folks what being in a corporation actually means. And the best analogy I could find... is marriage.

Now, while this may seem funny it is also very true, if you ask me. People start their career by looking for a direction, rather than an employer, but they use employment as a tool to find and validate that direction. You may have finished college or university, but it is not clear yet where you would like to work. You still nurture thoughts of starting your own company and selling it for billions. You don't know what exactly you are good for yet. How is that different from when starting your love life? You don't know your "type", you look gratefully to any girl that would look back at you, you still hope you will find that "one true love" that will be pristine, beautiful, smart, good in bed and totally in love with you and your greatest fear is that if you talk to her, all kind of crap is going to spew out because you are not yet sure of yourself, or that in the blessed event you get her to bed, you will suck at it.

With experience comes enlightenment, though. You realize that some companies are not worth working for, that some bosses are just insufferable, that you are actually good at some things and you can pursue a career in that direction (while other directions would be a waste of everybody's time) and that being friends with your employer is nice, but not actually required. You realize you have a "type", a sort of working environment where you would like to work, while making yourself and everybody else happy. You are not working for a large company yet, you are just exploring your options and gaining confidence. "Listen", you say to your boss, "it was a great time working for you, but I need my space. It's not you, it's me. I can do better.". You can do that because you start to know your worth (or at least your minimum worth).

After this period of dating, you start to have longer relationships. You start to like your working place, give your loyalty to it, enjoying when your employers are praised of their product. At this stage, most companies are startups or small branches. Your boss is not far from where you could imagine yourself. Maybe he was a skilled worker too and, after "getting the ropes", he started his own company, thus effectively "graduating" to the next level. It's not so far from the "world as a school" view that many students have. This means if you do something bad, you are likely to get the negative feedback from the clients thrown at you, shouted at, made to feel ashamed for failing "the family". Not different from getting scolded by a parent or big brother or maybe a teacher. When you do something right, your boss might reward you, either by praise or by a bonus. You are also likely to find out what went well. You think of your employer as your peer and you start to get feelings of commitment towards the company, maybe even dream that as you evolve as a worker, you will be more and more appreciated, maybe even become owner, pulling that company up with you.

So, at this stage you think your girlfriend likes you as you like her, that if there is anything wrong she will tell you and that the relationship works great. Great disappointment awaits when you become more and more invested in the relationship and her response is just to smile at you more. At one point you tell her that you need more, time when you face reality and see that she will agree with you and break it off either directly or by remaining indifferent to your efforts. You could, of course, become complacent in this dysfunctional relationship, in which neither will make an effort and the results will be mediocre at best. You will not be happy.

Let's assume that it is over. You took the cold shower, realized that as an employee your role is to do your job and maybe take the blame for the bad things you do. No benevolent employer will come to you, pat you on the back, admit that his company has grown largely because of you and bring you up as a partner. You will become a bit cynical, starting to look less at the interesting work and the smart people and more for objective benefits like salary and working conditions. You still have the passion for what you do, after all, it is the reason you went for this career in the first place: you think you are good at it. You also have a medium large resume that proves it. You may not be your job, but you are your work, still.

This is the moment when the corporation becomes attractive and when they start to want you. The working conditions are great, the money is good, there is a system in place that guarantees quality and that allows you to continuously grow. They will even train you. It's like a new dream, now that the first two (having your own firm or being elevated to partner if you work well) have gone out in smoke. There are people that will pay you more to do the same thing and even support you in becoming better.

Once you go this way, you have a stable place to work, great kitchen, good furniture, console games. You are even allowed to play them if you are doing your job well. Your remuneration is not increasing exponentially anymore, but you have good chances you will get a raise annually, after being reviewed by managers and peers. You hardly hear of any of your clients, unless the entire product line is bad. Occasionally you get whiff of comments from clients that sound wonderful, but just feel fake: lots of "great" and "awesome" for a work you know to be good at best and most likely mediocre. With a corporation the strategy may change at any moment: products abandoned, directions chosen arbitrarily, features appearing out of nowhere. You still remember what it meant to be an important part of a company and so you start suggesting ways of improving the end result, only to be met with condescendent pats on the back. Not only your idea is not very good, it is you who doesn't understand what the company wants. Yes, it would work, but best for you and your colleagues, not for the greater entity. If in a small company your superior was somebody like you, only better or richer or older, now you have people of the same age as you that never did your work and that have completely different sets of values determining what and how you do your job. You really want to please them, but you feel misunderstood and you are incapable of understanding them in return.

You have reached the marriage stage. Your wife looked so good when you first met and she still does, only she walks in loose pyjamas in the house, doesn't smile so much, has completely different habits and a weird value system. Doesn't like what you like, wants you to "compromise" all the time and do things for "the couple". And while you "work on the relationship" the result is boring. You hardly hear her complain, but neither do you say anything, that would be rude, you would hurt her feelings. You read psychology books on how to improve your relationship or how to resolve conflicts without aggression. You do the things that you both like a little instead of doing the things you like a lot. Whenever you feel down, disappointed with your life, you consider all the years you gave to the marriage, the children, the way things might still get better in the future. Maybe it's your fault or you can still fix it somehow.

Just as in a marriage, your company does not pay you for your efforts, but for the fact that any other company would pay the same for a man of your qualities. You don't get to choose the direction of your life, because it is not yours anymore. Your job is to do the things you are told, not less and certainly not more, integrate with the process (maybe with your team, but that's a bonus. Process always beats people in a company), appear pleasant and always consider the consequences of your actions and words. Everybody is polite, even if they fire you or tell you your work sucked. If you somehow get noticed and start a real relationship with your betters you are immediately despised by your peers. You go up in the hierarchy for social reasons. If you are good enough in that, you may join the management track and continually getting raises, bonuses and promotions. Fail to do that and everyone will notice how hard working you are right until the moment they don't need you anymore.

And this is the point when you think "Wow, if I ever get out of this, I will start my own company!" only you spent too much time doing menial work and you lost your edge, you lost contact with any potential clients, you lost contact with your field of work, you got used to the comfort of getting a lot of money on a regular basis. You think "Oh, dear, if I quit this, I will have to go dating again and now I am old and forgot how it is done!". You are not really miserable, you are just not happy. You can live with that.

What do I think? You are not made for a single direction only. You may choose to change it at any time or even walk several at a time. Having chosen a direction, you must never stop. Others keep going forward and will leave you behind. The purpose of money is to allow you to survive. It's for housing, nourishment and maybe a bit of comfort, it is not a "level" you reach, or a unit of your value. Your value is determined by the results of your actions. Shitty actions, shitty value, no matter who's at fault. It's never too late to date, because it is worth finding someone you love, even if you end up marrying her afterwards :-)

Of course, you will all ask me now "Siderite, how come you are not following your own advice? Why do you stay?". There are several reasons. I am a little afraid. There is this economic crisis and no one is actually hiring. There are few startups. If I go somewhere else, I would only be switching one corporation for another. I may also be not "not happy" enough; complacency is in my blood. I certainly have that disgusting habit of watching a movie till the end, even if it is a bad one, just to be able to comment on it in full knowledge. I do feel that I have more things to learn here. Rest assured, though, if I spend too much time considering my options until none remain, you will read it in this blog and know not to follow my example.

So many new series and I haven't started watching them all and there are more still coming!



Let's start with the already described ones:

• Doctor Who - episode six of the seventh season has just appeared. I will probably watch it tonight.
• Torchwood - no news at all for the fifth season. The only new things about it (for me) is that a Torchood episode has 50 minutes on Starz and 60 on BBC One.
• Criminal Minds - episodes keep piling up, but it never came up as a priority.
• Dexter - season 8 of the series will be the last. It's official. The launch date is June 30, 2013.
• Fringe - Fringe has ended! Finally! The whole observer invasion thing was like a stupid rehash of German occupation movies.
• True Blood - June 16, 2013 is the release date. The trailer seems to imply something epic.
• The Good Wife - the show seems to be oscillating between working and not working, with all the unnecessary complications that add no value to the story. Like a hard drive that develops bad sectors I expect it to fail any time now, even if I still like the series.
• Haven - The third season is over, a fourth was announced. The ending of the third season leaves me with few expectations.
• Falling Skies - season three will start on June 9, 2013. It's one of those that are just good and sci-fi enough to keep watching.
• Southpark - season 17 starts on September 2013. Can't wait.
• The Killing - still on my watch list, haven't started watching it.
• Suits - third season is about to start. It doesn't make much sense, but I like it.
• Breaking Bad - I was saying in the last post that the fifth season has ended. It hasn't! There is still one half left starting July 2013. This will end the show. Maybe then I will watch it all to see what happened. Reading the episode synopsis might work as well.
• Californication - I have demoted Californication to neutral. It feels really tired. The LA back and forth talk doesn't do it for me and there doesn't seem to be any (relevant) action.
• Beavis&Butt-head - It seems the show was quietly axed. I haven't heard anything about it for a long time.
• Homeland - I've seen two seasons of Homeland and it's pretty cool. Season three is announced to start on September 29, 2013. I can't empathise with ANY of the characters, but I like it.
• The Walking Dead - slow walking dead people don't really seem a threat anymore. Instead, psychopathic humans do! Oh, and Lennie James appeared as a recluse madman in the last episode, and the season three finale airs today.
• Game of Thrones - season three premiers tonight. There are many fans of the books and series in my friend circle and I like the show so far. I still feel that it doesn't capture the feel of the books, but then again, maybe it will develop its own.
• Mad Men - season six is to premier on April 7, 2013. I will keep watching it, because it is just great.
• Misfits - the show has been renewed for a fifth season. I will watch it, but I don't have much hopes for it.
• Sherlock - the third season of the series will begin probably late 2013. I liked it, even if a bit too... Moffaty? I really don't want to see more and more people acting like Doctor Who. One is enough.
• Spartacus - Vengeance - I had hopes for this season, but it seems it's just the same thing, with a slave rebellion thrown in. It will probably have a Braveheart ending.
• My Babysitter's a Vampire - No news of a third season, but the show has built a faithful (if childish) fan base. What, they don't sell stuff to children in Canada?
• Continuum - the second season starts on April 21, 2013. Sci-fi cop show? Have to watch it.:)
• Copper - the second season of this cop drama starts late 2013. I liked the show and the characters.
• Longmire - still now date for the second season, but I liked the characters and the setting. The script is well written, too.
• The Newsroom - my wife loves this. I will watch the second season, but I can't decide if I like it or not.
• Arrow - I still watch this, as a superhero show with beautiful actors.
• Beauty and the Beast - removed from my viewing list.
• Battlestar Galactica - Blood and Chrome - there will not be more. It was a series of webisodes that were part of a pilot that no one bought. I really liked it, though.
• Elementary - watching it, but it's not great.
• Hatfields and McCoys - This American Civil War miniseries was filmed in Romania and stars Kevin Costner. I really wanted to see it, but didn't get around to it, yet.
• Hit and Miss - A new show I really know nothing about. Six episodes so far.
• Hunted - Cinemax still negotiating a second season without BBC support. Boo, BBC! Anyway, hopes are waning.
• Parade's End - another miniseries. The trailer looks really promising and I haven't read the book. As soon as I watch it you will know.
• Primeval - New World - I really tried to like this show, but I didn't. I removed it from my viewing list.
• Restless - a miniseries. A young woman finds out that her mother worked as a spy for the British Secret Service during World War II and has been on the run ever since. The synopsis sounds interesting. Two episodes so far, that I have yet to watch.
• Ripper Street - It's a bit like doctor Watson working for Lestrade, but I like the characters and the setting.
• The Fear - A Brighton crime boss turns entrepreneur and then he goes crazy. Like mentally ill crazy. I haven't started watching this miniseries, but it might be interesting.
• Vegas - It seems that to keep audiences happy, unreasonable dramas and conspiracies must be presented. Again I feel cheated, as I really like the show but I already see how the mass production version of the script looms its ugly head.
• Wizards versus Aliens - there will be a second season, starting late 2013. I don't know if I will still watch it, but it's childish fun.

And now for novelties

• Banshee - for a show I almost decided I did not like, it seems crazy that I watched all episodes so far. The basic premise is that a recently released inmate assumes the identity of a cop in a small town, where he has to battle local thugs, Serbian mobsters and the town's crime lord. The characters are just fun enough to enjoy, even if the story is totally implausible.
• Bates Motel - A TV series based on Psycho. Haven't started watching the two episodes that aired so far.
• Black Mirror - the second season of Black Mirror is here! Didn't watch it, yet, but probably will. There are three one hour British sci-fi stories with a moral per season.
• Borealis - Weird pilot about a future where nations battle control over Arctic resources in a very covert way. The result, a frontier town Western set in the future, didn't convince anyone and therefore did not materialize into a series.
• Broadchurch - Another small town cop thing? At least it is British, with David Tennant playing the main character (and cannibalizing some other former Doctor Who actors. It seems to have good production values, as well.
• Cracked - Another Canadian cop production. Cracked follows the newly formed Psych Crimes Unit within a Canadian police department set up by a psychiatrist in partnership with the police.
• Cult - the series centers on a journalist blogger and a production assistant, who investigate a series of mysterious disappearances that are linked to a popular television series named Cult. The bad guy is T-bag from Prison Break.
• Do No Harm - A horrible attempt at a TV series, it features a surgeon that secretly has a split personality. A Jekyll and Hyde thing? No. Just a bad show. I removed it from my viewing list.
• Girls - this is not a new show per se, but one I didn't watch until recently. It sounded like a smart Sex and the City, so I got around to check it out. It stars an incredibly ugly, stupid and self centred girl and three of her friends. One of them is really hot, but it couldn't save the show. Weird and ugly people that attempt to appear interesting. They are not.
• Golden Boy - The series follows the successful, meteoric rise — from age 26 to 34 — of Walter Clark, an ambitious cop who becomes the youngest Police Commissioner in New York City history.So, yeah, a police drama again, but it seems more than the usual crap. We'll see.
• House of Cards - I almost added a "want" status to this new series on the basis of Kevin Spacey being the lead actor alone. It is an adaptation of a previous BBC miniseries of the same name which is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. This also lends support to the theory that the show is good. People that started watching it liked it, as well. So, all I need is to start watching it.
• In the Flesh - Another zombie TV series! And it's British! What's even funnier is that the main character is a rehabilitated zombie Partially Deceased Syndrome sufferer. I didn't yet got "the bug" for it, but it might become a "want". I have watched two episodes so far.
• Labyrinth - I don't know what to say about this show yet. John Hurt stars in it, it seems to involve a connection with the long lost Christian sect of Cathar and is a darma fantasy. People seem to like it well.
• Mayday - the story of a missing May Queen teenager in a small English country village and the dirty secrets this brings up from the depths of its inhabitants. It's a British miniseries, but the viewer response has not been positive.
• Metal Hurlant Chronicles - This is a low budget European sci-fi series based on the comic books with the same title. Only five episodes and probably there will not be a second season, but it was fun enough.
• Monday Mornings - In the last post I was saying that I was in the mood for a good medical drama. This is it so far. Not so much medical, as ethical, though. The story revolves around the weekly meetings of all the surgeons in a prestigious hospital to discuss medical incidents. I like the actors and so far it has been a pretty solid story. A bit too melodramatic, but for an American medical drama, it's good.
• Monsters vs. Aliens - this is a kiddie animation show based on the movie with the same name. After a mere 20 seconds of loud colourful characters smiling and talking maniacally, I stopped and deleted the file. Will not ever watch this.
• Motive - Motive is a Canadian police procedural drama following working-class single-mom Detective Flynn (Lehman) in her investigation of crimes. Each episode also reveals the killers and victims at the start of the show, unusual in police procedural dramas. Haven't watched it yet.
• Orphan Black - The first episode aired yesterday. It's a sci-fi drama, something to do with clones. I hope it will be good.
• Privates - BBC One drama television series set in 1960 which follows the stories of eight privates who are part of the last intake of National Service, and their relationships with their officers and non-commissioned officers, civilian staff and families. Didn't start watching it, yet.
• Red Widow - a housewife from Northern California whose husband, a figure in organized crime, was killed. She has to continue his work to protect her family. Don't know how good it is yet.
• Rome - only two seasons in all, but it told a story from start to finish from the perspective of two friends, soldiers in the Roman legions. Great production values, great acting, loved the actors. At the end, even if it was a great show, I didn't feel like I was hooked and needed more, which is rare with TV series.
• Scandal - an American political thriller television series created by Shonda Rhimes, of Grey's Anatomy fame. I fear the moment when I will present this to my wife and she might like it.
• Seed - A comedy about a guy that donates sperm and finds himself cornered by the resulting offspring. Started badly, was clearly a cliché from the start.
• The Americans - Set during the Cold War period in the 1980s, The Americans is the story of Elizabeth and Philip Jennings, two Soviet KGB officers posing as American citizens and a married couple. Another show waiting for my attention, but it stars Keri Russell, who I love, so I will probably watch it at some time.
• The Blue Rose - a New Zealand crime drama television series about some lowly clerks who join forces to fight the corporate corruption that caused the death of one of their colleagues.
• The Carrie Diaries - Wow! A TV shows based on King's horror story! Nope. It's the TV version of Sex and the City, with a teenage Carrie... the horror, the horror...
• The Doctor Blake Mysteries - an Australian television series. Doctor Lucien Blake returns home to Ballarat in 1959 to take over his deceased father's general medical practice after an absence of 30 years. Doctor Blake is a keeper of secrets and a solver of mysteries. No data on the quality of the show yet.
• The Following - a series about a psychopath obsessed with Poe's writings that creates a cult following of wannabe serial killers. Interesting premise and it stars Kevin Bacon, but it might fizzle.
• Twisted - A teen with a troubled past reconnects with his two female best friends from childhood. He becomes the prime suspect when a fellow student is surprisingly found dead in her home. Didn't start watching it, but it doesn't sound great.
• Utopia - a British conspiracy thriller that follows a small group of people who find themselves in possession of the manuscript sequel of a cult graphic novel called "The Utopia Experiments" which is rumoured to have predicted the worst disasters of the last century. This leads them to be targeted by an organisation known as 'The Network', which they must avoid to survive. Sounds interesting and has a high IMDb rating.
• Vikings - a Canadian-Irish historical drama television series, inspired by the epic sagas about the raiding, trading, and exploring Norsemen of early medieval Scandinavia. It follows the exploits of the legendary Viking chieftain Ragnar Lodbrok and his crew and family. Sounds cool, but I didn't look at it, yet.
• Wallander - I liked this British adaptation of a Swedish police drama. It stars Kenneth Branagh and is still placed in Sweden, even if spoken in English. It is as much a classical police inspector centred series as one can be, straightforward three seasons of three episodes each. Now, I can't say it was great, but me and the wife watched all nine episodes in about a week.
• Star Wars - The Clone Wars (animated series) - I can't really give this a bad rating. If the show is made for children, then it's not really that awful: count Duqu and his Syth lords are being mischievous and evil, while Master Yoda and his Jedi are always kind and good. But that is what makes the show an awful experience for anyone over the age of 12. If you think about it, the movies were not that different from this, but they showed real intrigue, violence, tough choices, even grey characters like Darth Vader. While this show lasted for five seasons, there were only a few moments when they tried to show the evolution of Anakin Skywalker from a Jedi knight to a servant of the Syth, while the technology and thinking in this series was antiquated and childish. That made me stop after a season or so, I watched the last episode of the third season, didn't see an improvement and now it has been announced that the fifth season will be the last.

A couple a weeks ago I went for a job interview in order to see what is out there. It was a terrible phone interview and I failed to make a connection with the technical interviewers. I think I was just as disappointed in them as they were with me. However, what I believe killed it for them was an experiment I decided to conduct: to the usual question about software patterns I answered boldly that I didn't believe in software patterns and that I believed management techniques were what drove productivity and quality of work, not particular software commonalities. It was partly true, though, I do believe that, and this post is about my thoughts on the matter. Now, be warned: I may offend a few people that religiously pray in UML at Martin Fowler's shrine in the church of the Gang of Four.

Let's start with a brief history of software patterns. It started with inspiration from a building architecture book that explained that for similar problems there are similar solutions in architecture and that listing them would be a boon for the would be architect. Someone applied this to software in the form of common practices to solve common problems. The idea was that, outside the main goal of cataloguing best practices, these software patterns would provide a sort of common language for software architects.

The problem is, of course, practice. The good part of a software pattern is that it provides a tested solution to a common problem. The bad part of a software pattern is that there are not that many common problems and most of the time software patterns are applied badly in practice. Invariably, at some point, the application of a software pattern leads to the Golden Hammer "antipattern". If the software pattern is well thought to apply to as many of the situations where a certain problem is met, then it is defined by a lot of flexibility. That may sound good, but a flexible architecture is usually low performing, overly complex or simply hard to understand in order to use them in very specific circumstances. That is why for most requirements there isn't one software library, but many, each attempting to juggle the right amount of performance, complexity and ease of use. And, of course, if a pattern is not well thought, why use it at all?

I guess the point I am trying to make is that current software patterns try to catalogue small issues, things that are, really, of little consequence, and that other things are way more important to behold, like long term vision. What is the point of using Inversion of Control if you don't plan to ever make components modular? Why would you create an MVC application if the code monkeys that you have hired will riddle the view with business logic? In fact, why would you make any effort of standardizing your application if you don't plan anything? And that is the basis of my contention: planning an application is the bottleneck. I would go for Software Planning Patterns way before I even consider mid level software patterns. The planning is where the need of the technician does battle with the need of the business owner. One strategy might be perfect when chosen only to become obsolete during implementation, I agree, but then you have an initial strategy, a current strategy and the techs must find the way to transition from one to another. Planning is where all the interested parties come together and need to reach a decision; the technical implementation, let's face it, must just work and then, hopefully, be reasonably maintainable.

And I dare say that in building architecture the long term plan for the building is already there. It must be, as it will last for decades. You don't start a skyscraper only to change your mind in the middle of the work and go for a stadium. You know the purpose of the building, you know how you will use it, you know the needs it has to cover, and all that is left is to determine the technical way to achieve this plan. Software is way more elastic than this and I believe this is why the concept of pattern does not easily transfer from the domain of construction to the one of software development. In a way, forcing these patterns on the software world is in itself like using a Golden Hammer: they don't fit exactly. Moreover, the word of the day in software is Agile, the management technique that assumes right from the word go that there will be change in the plans for the project and that the team must be ready for it. I submit that the current state of software patterns is too rigid, too inflexible, based on the assumption that there is a plan and that it will not change. Or worse, based on the assumption that there is no plan and that anything must be enabled by the software architecture. They either force you to lose flexibility or add so much of it that it makes the end product bloated and unproductive.

The answer is somewhere in the middle and that middle is different from project to project. No matter how well software patterns are designed and applied, in the end they must conform (or end up hindering) the strategic plans for the software project, which are, in my view, the true bottleneck of software development. As a domain specific language between software architects, software patterns are good, but one has to acknowledge the extreme minority of architects in software. Even in that small guild I don't find there are a lot of discussions where the lingo of software patterns is used much. The complex patterns are invalidated by the many "flavours" that unavoidably appear to handle that complexity, while the simple patterns are invalidated by components that encapsulate them and relieve the developer from having to implement them. My conclusion is that the importance of software patterns is being exaggerated. Little more than a miniatlas of common software practices, it serves as a pretty picture book, rather than an instrument that promotes understanding the field of software development.

As you may have guessed from my previous chess posts, I am a chess beginner and a gambiteer. I like to play the strange moves and see my opponents squirm in positions that they were not expecting and were not prepared for. That is why the proposition in this post is gambit galore and also to be taken with a grain of salt.

My idea is that there could be common themes for the three Gambits in the title, since they start almost the same way. You have the Smith-Morra Gambit, where White answers Black's Sicilian Defence with d4 and then c3 in the accepted version:1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 * then you have the Danish Gambit, where White's move order is the same in response to King's pawn defence: 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 * and then there is the similar response from Black to the King's pawn opening, called the Elephant gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 *

You might notice that in the Elephant, I did not offer up a second pawn on c6. This is because the main line is pawn to e4 and also White has the opportunity to take e5 with the knight, which is the computer recommendation as well. The problem is that after Black's response Qe2 to the main line or the Bd6 computer recommendation after Nxe5, the Elephant doesn't appear at all like the Danish/Morra and, instead, threads into its own territory, somewhere closer to the Latvian gambit, but not by much. However, in this post I will be stretching the imagination and will be trying to squish the big Elephant into the Morra mold and see where it takes me.

I have just finished watching a two hour video presentation of the Morra accepted line, by IM Andrew Martin, and there are also a lot of tutorials for the Danish, from beginner to very advanced levels. Not so for the Elephant, which seems to be even less favoured than the Latvian, to which GM Roman Dzindzichashvili answered with a refutation and some very rude words to its efficacity. All that I could find about it are lines that have no connection with the Danish/Morra style and that is because of that pesky White knight on f3.

If my thesis holds ground, then I will be talking here about a chess system that has some similar ideas and theory for at least three major openings: The Sicilian Defence and King's pawn for both White and Black! Also, threading on less travelled ground, there is a good chance online and club players will be unnerved by it.

So let's get into it. I will start with the Smith-Morra main line. This means the most played version in database games, by players who know theory and open that way because it was proven to be the best way. There is little chance you will see the same moves in club level games.

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Qe2 Be7 9. Rd1 e5 10. h3 O-O 11. Be3 a6 12. Rac1 *

This is the position in which White wants to get. I tweaked a little the game so that at move 11. Black moved to the second most used line in the database, the a6 system, rather than Be6 and exchange light bishops. What I want to evidence here is the position of the White pieces: both rooks are connected and on open or semi-open files, cramping Black's development, the bishops are out and about, aiming at the Black king, the knights are developed and the queen is on a very crucial square, controlling yet another file and the essential e2-c4 diagonal.Black has not finished development, has pinned pawns and weaknesses like b6 where a knight may find outpost. There is a lot of potential for attack and, even before reaching this position, a lot of possible traps in which Black could fall. Even the main line has only about 100 games in the database at this point, so it is not very common, even if it is a pretty solid opening.

Let's move to the Danish and compare.

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nf3 d6 7. Qb3 (7. O-O Be7 8. Qe2 O-O 9. h3 a6 10. Rd1 b5 11. Bb3) 7... Qd7 8. Ng5 Ne5 9. Bb5 c6 10. f4 cxb5 11. fxe5 *

Seems to be a different beast altogether. I've added a variation that plays like the Morra, the single game in the database like that (Sipek-Urbanec 1995). The b5 push is also found in the Morra. So, what are the differences here? The most important to me seems the absence of the Black pawn on e6. That means White can attack much quicker and Black must defend more aggressively, too. The e4 pawn is unopposed and, in some games, that proves decisive for White. The pawn on c7 is still there, so the Black queen will have to maneuver on light squares instead of dark.

A possible conclusion would be that, even if they seem similar, the Danish and Morra gambits are quite different. But are they?

A White queen on e2 would support the e4 pawn in its push forward and make room for a rook on d1, just like in the Morra. The dark bishop can pin or eventually trade with the knight on f6 or even move to e3 or f4, supporting the e4 pawn as it moves to e5 and making room for a rook on c1. A computer analysis on a Danish game played in the Morra fashion shows equality when Black still has an extra pawn.

Now, some of the readers may scoff and conclude that I am trying to fit the proverbial triangle shape into the round hole using brute force, that attempting to take one opening and play it like another is an imperfect chimera, destined to be an abomination. However, I must remind you that I am not a master player, nor a professional one. I have no time to learn tons of theory just to win a game. My purpose for this research (which may still fail to achieve anything) is to find a gambit based system that uses the same principles for any opponent response. In time, each variation can be improved and branched off from the main system, but at the start all I need is for it to work.

Let's get back, then. How about playing a Morra game in the Danish way? Well, the Danish gambit is even rarer than the Smith-Morra and the games in my database are primarily focused on the exposed f7 square. It could work, I guess, but it would seem even more unnatural and, lacking proper theory, a beginner like me could easily mess it up. I will, therefore, use the Morra as the template to which all others must conform.

Besides, if you think fitting the Danish to the Morra was difficult, the Elephant comes next!

In the database there are only two games that start like a Morra Elephant and they both are won by White, which is not good for us. Only when it gets to the standard position of knight protecting the single center pawn, the transposed games suddenly reach 73! It seems this position can be more easily achieved by playing the Scandinavian defence! In the next board I will present the main line for the Elephant, then the Morra Elephant and at the same time the way to reach the same position from the Scandinavian. The rest will continue from the Elephant line, but, actually, it will be based more on Scandinavian games.

1. e4 e5 (1... d5 {The Scandinavian Defence} 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 Nxc6 4. Nf3 e5 {And we reach the position would would have liked from the Morra Elephant.}) 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 (3... c6 {And here is a Morrafication of the Elephant} 4. dxc6 Nxc6 5. Bb5 Bd6 6. O-O Nge7 7. d4 e4 8. Ne5 Bxe5 9. dxe5 O-O 10. Qxd8 Rxd8 11. Nc3 Nxe5) 4. Qe2 {This is how the Elephant is mainly played.} Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Nxe4 O-O 7. d3 Nxd5 8. Qd1 Nc6 9. Be2 Bf5 10. O-O Qd7 *

Ooh! This seems completely different. White still has that extra tempo and he uses it to pin the Black knight on c6, which leaves e5 undefended. Black's bishop on f8 did not have time to get out, so moving the queen on e7 like in the Morra would block it and the entire king side. The move Bd6 is the only one that can defend the pawn and this gives White at least the opportunity to swap the bishop with the knight and mess up the Black pawn structure on the queen side. If White does not take, as in the example above, then the only possible move to protect the knight is to use the other knight on e7, thus forever altering the structure of the game.

It seems no amount of force will twist the Elephant into a Morra gambit a tempo behind. A Morra with a lost tempo doesn't even appear to work! Besides, in order to get here, White had to ignore the opportunity in the beginning to take on e5 with the knight, as suggested by the computer; a much safer route to the same dysfunctional position can be achieved from the Scandinavian defence.

The Elephant hides some interesting traps that have nothing to do with the Morra or the Danish and has more in common with the Latvian gambit that with the two systems above. The Latvian, if you remember, offers up two pawns in order to gain the tempo White is awarded in the start of a chess game. The Elephant can be played in the same way, only to lose two center pawns, so not so good. The similarities with the Morra/Danish are deceiving. A tempo behind, Black cannot use the same ideas, having to defend instead of attack.

Conclusion: It is a very difficult thing to find a defence for Black that works the same way as an opening for White, because of the extra tempo. Even so, the Elephant only begins like the Morra, it has nothing else in common. The Morra gambit itself is only similar to the Danish and, while I think they can be molded in the same shape, it would be a tortuous adventure that I am not sure will get me where I want.

I hope you have gained a little understanding of the differences between the three gambits and how simple differences like the position of a pawn or an extra tempo can change a game of chess.

You know the format, let's get this out of the way. First, the series I've already been talking about:

• Doctor Who - a weird Christmas special introduced another companion. She is cute and perky and doesn't take commands well. Also, she dies twice already. It doesn't seem to stop her.
• Torchwood - no Christmas special and no news on a fifth season. I wonder if it will ever reappear.
• Criminal Minds - still on hold, but not totally rejected yet.
• Dexter - A weird seventh season sees Dexter in love, running away from mobsters and being helped by his police sergeant to cover up kills or even commit them. Then it all ended in a ridiculous fashion. Hint: watch Dexter's face when Deb jumps at the recently shot person in the last episode: it seems to say That is NOT how this is done! Stop it, just stooop!
• Fringe - Fringe is not better. I still watch it in order to avoid sci-fi withdrawal symptoms.
• True Blood - I can't wait for season 6. I do fear for its quality, but I also have high hopes.
• Weeds - the series has ended, finally, when all life has been squeezed out of it. I am glad it is over.
• The Good Wife - season 4 is running strong... ish. There are some new ideas introduced in the show that don't really fit well or seem to be needed in the picture, like Kalinda's husband.
• Haven - season 3 of Haven pits Audrey against a killer that takes people's skins. And she is also to disappear on a certain date in order to stop the troubles. And she is also courted by two guys who are insanely in love with her. What is a girl to do?
• Lost Girl - removed from my watching list.
• Falling Skies - season three has not started yet. I am curious how it will continue. Plus it's sci-fi.
• Southpark - some funny episodes in the October batch. Could have been better. Still good.
• The Killing - still on my watch list, being a police show and all.
• Suits - third season is about to start. It doesn't make much sense, but I like it.
• Breaking Bad - the fifth season has ended and there will not be a sixth. Still haven't had the inclination to watch it.
• Californication - the sisth season is about to begin. I can't wait.
• Beavis&Butt-head - It seems the show was quietly axed. I haven't heard anything about it for a long time.
• Homeland - I've seen two seasons of Homeland and it's pretty cool. Claire Danes is a bipolar CIA agent that fights to prove an American soldier rescued from the Talibans has been turned. She is also in love with him. Not much sense when you put it that way, but a lot of tension. The show is another American adaptation from an Israeli show.
• The Walking Dead - pretty hard stuff added this season, making it interesting again. Some characters even die! Almost got to "want" status.
• Game of Thrones - the show follows the books faithfully, even when removing some bits or rearranging others. However I feel it failed to fully capture the atmosphere of the book. We'll see how it goes.
• L5 - no second episode for a long time now and with the current economic climate, I doubt it will continue. Too bad.
• Mad Men - season six is to premier in 2013. I will keep watching it, because it is just great.
• Misfits - all new characters in Misfits, with some stories interesting, but now more towards shocking and/or disgusting. I've removed the "want" status from it, because the quality of the show is not as great as when it started.
• Sherlock - the third season of the series will begin probably late 2013. I liked it, even if a bit too... Moffaty? I really don't want to see more and more people acting like Doctor Who. One is enough.
• Spartacus - Vengeance - War of the Damned will start soon, in January. Too bad it ends the show, but then again, maybe it will be something meaningful and slim, without boring filler episodes.
• My Babysitter's a Vampire - vampire teens, with seer and wizard friends and fighting against the evil in their highschool? It's silly, but at least it knows it is silly. I watch it because it is easy fun.
• Continuum - a second season has been confirmed, but I don't know when it will start. Rather boring, but sci-fi, you know.
• Copper - a BBC America drama about Irish immigrants set "Five Points". I really liked it, with its depiction of rampant corruption and racism and classism at the beginnings of the city of New York.
• Longmire - a second season has been confirmed. I really like the show, even if about a rural cop in the middle of nowhere.
• Political Animals - it feels interesting and profound, but it is not really so. The impression is strong, though, and I may still had watched it if it weren't cancelled.
• The Newsroom - my wife loves this. I will watch the second season, but I can't decide if I like it or not.

And now for new shows:

• 666 Park Avenue - A show about the devil! I haven't started watching it, and it was cancelled already.
• A Young Doctor's Notebook - This is not really a series, but a mini series. Four episodes, each 20 minute long, about a Russian freshly graduated doctor coming to work in a really remote village. The show is brutal and funny at the same time. I doubt there will be a second season, but this one is worth it. Starring John Hamm and Daniel Radcliff.
• Arrow - I watch this, even if I don't really know why. It is yet another superhero series where the main strength of the guy is that he shoots arrows. I can't recommend it.
• Beauty and the Beast - Incredibly beautiful people acting as both beauty and beast in this ridiculous show that attempts to place the story in modern times. The beauty is, obviously, a cop.
• Blackout - God know I tried to like this show about political and personal corruption in England, but I couldn't. It starts bleak and intense, but quickly devolves into the surreal.
• Battlestar Galactica - Blood and Chrome - so far William Adama is introduced as a young and cocky pilot in a series of webisodes. The show has everything I loved about the first two seasons of BSG 2004. I can't wait for more.
• Elementary - the American Sherlock doesn't look or feel at all like a Sherlock. Instead it looks and feels exactly like so many US shows about gifted people helping the police. I still watch it, but the show is really not what it should have been.
• Emily Owens M.D. - I was caught into one of those times when one wants to see a true doctor show, with actual cases and medical dilemmas. No. Instead this crappy show seems like the poor brother of Gray's Anatomy, with those silly happy songs in the background whenever the female protagonist speaks with other women that are not her evil boss or highschool nemesis (I am not kidding, they added the highschool nemesis thing)
• Hatfields and McCoys - This American Civil War miniseries was filmed in Romania and stars Kevin Costner. I really wanted to see it, but didn't get around to it, yet.
• Hit and Miss - A new show I really know nothing about. Six episodes so far.
• Hunted - Oh, Melissa George as a secret undercover agent (and I do mean undercover). Beautiful, smart, trained to kill and yet fragile as a woman, she leads the show well until... it is put on hold! BBC really screwed up abandoning this show. Cinemax is in negotiations to continue doing it, in collaboration with BBC. Fingers crossed.
• Last Resort - The show started really well. An American submarine is ordered to nuke Pakistan, but through a secondary network. They request that the order be sent via the primary network, and they are shot upon. They manage to escape and hold fort on a remote island, threatening to launch on any country that even approaches the island. A great premise with very good actors. Unfortunately, the show started to lag a little, then suddenly was cancelled. I would like to believe that it was a nerve they touched with the script, but more likely there are too many stupid people deciding to watch reality shows instead.
• Made in Jersey - they tried to make "Working Girl" a series, with a New Jersey girl, no less, making it as a lawyer in the big city. It was a complete flop and it was quickly cancelled.
• Parade's End - another miniseries. The trailer looks really promising and I haven't read the book. As soon as I watch it you will know.
• Primeval - New World - I can't really say I don't want to see it. It is the American continuation or spin off from the British Primeval show. But it just feels bad in every way, even if Zane from Eureka stars as the lead character.
• Restless - a miniseries. A young woman finds out that her mother worked as a spy for the British Secret Service during World War II and has been on the run ever since. The synopsis sounds interesting. Two episodes so far, that I have yet to watch.
• Revolution - can you imagine a sci-fi show that I refused to watch? This is a horrible show, something that combines Xena with Flash Forward. Yes, it is possible. And it sucks!
• Ripper Street - this is not yet another Jack the Ripper show, instead it is set just after the killings stopped. A bit like Copper, with the police force of the time solving gruesome murders. Haven't got around to watch it, but it might be nice.
• Secret State - a British miniseries starring Gabriel Byrne. Four episodes, rather captivating, but lacking a proper resolution. Not to mention a happy ending, which British seem to avoid completely :)
• The Fear - A Brighton crime boss turns entrepreneur and then he goes crazy. Like mentally ill crazy. I haven't started watching this miniseries, but it might be interesting.
• The Mob Doctor - another promising series that gets cancelled for no good reason. This doctor woman is forced to work for the mod in order to get her younger brother out of debt. She is a brilliant doctor and she has to jumble her official cases with the off the ledger ones. Really interesting, even if a bit bland.
• Transporter - they decided to do a Transporter series. I couldn't get through half of the first episode. Everything that Jason Statham did well in the show, the ridiculous and pompous ass they placed as a lead did wrong. Every good redeeming quality of a movie that, let's face it, wasn't that great is lacking here. Avoid this waster of time!
• Vegas - Well, if we have to watch series about cops, at least let them be good ones. Vegas is a good alternative to Longmire, with the action set in the early years of Las Vegas where a farmer and former MP gets to become the sheriff of the town. Interpreted by Dennis Quaid, his character and the local mobster, also well interpreted by Michael Chiklis, make this series interesting and worth watching.
• Wizards versus Aliens - OK, go ahead: laugh! I did watch a TV series made exclusively for young children where a family of wizards fights a ship of evil aliens set to consume every bit of magic in the galaxy. It is an alternative to The Sarah Jane Adventures, only even sillier. I had fun.

There are several miniseries and shows that just arrived on my radar. No point in discussing something I know nothing about, yet. So far a lot of the shows I loved were cancelled, while stinking refuse of TV series thrive. I am almost to the point of not caring anymore. I hope my short list (yes, I was humblebragging) will help you decide which shows to watch or not watch.

Until the next post in the series about series!

As an experiment in blogging from the iPad, I am also trying to say something about my thoughts lately. One of them is about the need to be active, to do something, no matter what.

There is obviously nothing wrong with the first part, more with the latter: we are content when we do all kind of stupid things. We might regret them later, but while we are engaged in them we are enjoying it. A brilliant example is my grandmother; when she retired from her job she had a crisis, she did not know what to do, so she came to our house and catalogued every book we had. And we had hundreds. In a recent film Maggie Smith's character said that her apartment is so small that she can make it spotless in 30 minutes; then what is she supposed to do? Why did she need to do anything?

I also remember the times when, no matter what idiot designed the feature and what moron asked for it, I was happy to feel useful coding it. I imagine that people with jobs that I consider inferior, like housecleaning for example, would also feel better doing that instead of nothing at all. We sometimes curse the people that use us for their own benefit: the faceless corporation, the greedy boss, the slave driver manager. But isn't that a bit two faced if we actually enjoy it and feel that it gives purpose to our lives anyway?

What is this obsession with doing something? I can imagine that during our evolution, individuals who needed to do something to keep occupied were more successful than the ones sitting around doing nothing. That we are obsessive by design is a bit unsettling.

I guess the true test of this hypothesis would be to get into a situation where I am neither constrained to do something nor having a particular craving at that moment. Alas, this is hard to achieve. Even during holidays, there is first a time of respite from the stress of work related thoughts, then a bit of relaxing, then some things that we had planned before and then... it's over: we need to get back to work.

There have been rare occasions when I would become bored with sleeping, watching movies, reading books and news, playing games or learning whatever held my fancy at the moment. It is a time of creativity, of sifting through previous ideas and dreams and deciding some are not worth the effort or the resources to complete (or are damn impossible) and, yes, of doing. And yet the doing is never as good as imagined before starting it and never as satisfying as expected after having been done it. Yet the sheer pressure of sitting still and doing nothing forces on.

Of course, being a rather ordinary human being, I can hardly consider myself free of constraints. The rare occasions mentioned are just that: extremely rare. Having a lot of money might enable this kinds of situations, but even then I suspect the real hurdle would be to actually get to be alone. Alone with one's thoughts, alone from incessant distractions, free to let the mind roam. Would I then do something great, as I often daydream? Would I find the situation satisfying enough to not do anything? Or would I bore myself and be forced to seek the very distractions I have been fleeing? And before feeling left out and ignored, dear wife, I have to mention that this is an exploration of myself, outside any context, and that includes you, not forgotten, just off topic.

The answer to the question above is that I don't know, really. I just feel that the true test of one's life is to have the opportunity to imagine its next steps free of constraints and the resources to follow that path. Until then, we are just absorbing stuff, like biological capacitors. And sometimes we die before we get to discharge. I refuse to even consider people that learn nothing from their experiences.

There was a TED talk about the evolution of computer intelligence. We are at the edge of a revolution when computers get as smart as us and then exceed that intelligence. It is inevitable. People will be replaced by machines in increasingly more fields of expertise until there is nothing left to do. Can you imagine how that would be? I can't at the moment. Like pets to exceedingly smarter computers, we would either explore new avenues of thought or just sit and eat and sleep and fornicate. The pessimist that I am, I predict the latter. We will drown in the thing that defines us next after intellect: socialization. You already see hints of this now (I am talking of you, Facebook!), but this will only get worse.

I am torn right at this very moment between exploring this scenario (and of course, finding a solution) and the very subject of this post: doing or not doing something because we need to. Of course, this post must win for now. I can save the world later (I am putting it in my todo list).

My life is really quite uneventful, but I wonder if it should ever be different. The Chinese do have that curse "Be that your life is an interesting one". Is that truly that awful? Why is it that whenever I feel content with my life I also feel the need to change it? And when I do not, I feel the need to be content. Must I journey to find myself, as in so many bullshit movies and books? And if so, what will I find? Will I even want it after finding it? Is my life like a boring movie that must pick up the pace and, if so, who is watching it besides myself and who gets to direct it?

Bear with me here, this is one of those posts that come from an idea and result in a completely different thing.

This one started with the idea that religions have an expiration date. There were a lot of religions before Christianity took hold of the world, some of them really really old. The innovation of both Christianity and Islam is that they introduced prophets, new versions of their Gods and proof that they are not dead, uncaring or otherwise absentee. So, I asked myself, is it possible that a religion has an expiration date, after which it can't support the hold on its followers and they drift away to other things, like Scientology?

Then, the second idea. In order to create a new religion, one that can be called something more than a sect, we need a prophet. Someone with a history so outrageous that people can associate it with divinity. He or she must also sacrifice themselves for their strict ideals and/or people. We also need someone who came about sooner than 2000 years.

Idea number three: Hitler! He affected the entire world, he had pretty strict ideals and has sacrificed himself for them and (presumably) for his people, whoever they might have been. Outrageous life: check. New to the scene: check. Fanatic following: check. He is the perfect prophet! Add to this his deep hatred of Jews, who can only be reasonably differentiated from other people only by their religion. Add to this the mysticism that consumed Hitler before he died and his fascination with the occult. You get a prophet that burned the world for religious reasons.

Idea number four: That idea number three must piss both sides equally much. Neonazis would probably consider it blasphemy (thus unwittingly giving strength to it). Jews... well, they are pretty pissed at Nazis. Any cult based on them would probably disagree with them, too. The other people, they would bring into the argument the horror of war and the Holocaust and other things like that. Admittedly, the God that Hitler would have been a prophet for has to be pretty twisted, but we've seen worse, as gods go. The present ones are Gandhi compared with the old bunch.

Idea number five: we've discussed a ridiculous idea and the arguments against it are pretty much liked to the horror that Hitler brought onto the world. While over 70 million people have died as a consequence of World War II, we fixate on the religious connotations of the Holocaust and the directed persecution of one people. I hope I am wrong, but when I imagine the angry masses, terrified by this idea of mine, I imagine people bringing the Jew massacre in the forefront, with pancards and signs with "Never again". And that leads me to this fifth idea: that if 6 million people being massacred for their religion and nationality is horror, then the rest of 64 million being ignored or considered casualties of "regular" war, the idea that people can be killed in the millions and it is OK, if there are political and economic reasons for it... that is true horror.

Another post in my series of series I've been watching. Seriesly.


Again, since it is obvious that I am also watching shows I don't particularly like, I will employ this colour coding scheme: red for shows I do not recommend, green for those I like.

• Doctor Who - the first episode of season 7 was released. An interesting concept, but a rather unpleasant implementation. The writers chose to throw us directly in the midst of action and I felt there was no background and everything was disconnected. I do hope for the better.
• Torchwood - the next season of the other Doctor Who spin-off has not started yet. I don't even know if will ever start. I would watch it then.
• Eureka - Eureka has ended. A pretty weird finale, trying to save everything, give the show a chance for the future and also tie it to its very beginning.
• Criminal Minds - a lot of episodes remain to be watched, two seasons worth, but I couldn't make myself watch them. I think I've had my fill of police procedurals for a while.
• Dexter - I can't wait for the seventh season. Dexter's sister knows! It will be exciting, although I don't want another of those "Dexter is a daddy and he has a conscience" seasons.
• Fringe - there was one episode where the Observers had conquered Earth and were behaving like good old fashioned Nazis (oh, come on! Where is your creativity?!) but it ended just as it started, out of context. The latest season of Fringe ended with hints that this is the direction the next season will take. I certainly don't want yet another WWII movie clone.
• True Blood - season 5 just ended and it was pretty fun. There were a lot of boring episodes concerning the vampire authority that just didn't make sense and some other filler episodes, but all in all it was consistent with previous quality. Bill has become a super vamp, only he's nuts! Cool!
• Weeds - the series has not ended yet and I am still watching it. I get tired of the American affectations of the show; I think that bothers me most about it. And the story has become unsaveable. And the lead character is seven years older than the hot MILF she started as. But I am still watching... hmm
• The Good Wife - season 3 ended well. Unfortunately, Tony Scott died, too. I hope that doesn't affect the quality of the show. Season 4 is due to start at the end of the month.
• Haven - season 3 of Haven is also to start at the end of the month. I will probably watch it, since I can do it with my wife, but the show has gotten stale.
• Lost Girl - haven't watched this show for a while, even if I have a lot of episodes to see. I know it is a teenager show, but some of them work for me, too. This was too... Twittery?
• Falling Skies - second season was OK. It's sci-fi, so I watch it, but the script doesn't make sense most of the time. A new alien species has arrived for season 3. Are they allies or foes? Or has Pamela dreamed again?
• Southpark - the second half of the 16th season is due in October. It is one of the few comedy shows I watch and I really like it. The humour quality is not consistent, but it is great on average.
• The Killing - still on my watch list, being a police show and all.
• Suits - second season just ended and it was pretty far fetched.I enjoy watching it, though.
• Breaking Bad - I have decided I will watch BB when this fifth and final season ends. I don't know why I couldn't bring myself to watch the last two seasons. Maybe because the main character is so desperate when he actually doesn't need to be.
• Californication - the fifth season was pretty cool and it ended with Hank being poisoned. Will he survive? Doh!
• Beavis&Butt-head - I am waiting to see if they make any more episodes. I was disappointed with the new episodes.
• Homeland - still on my to watch list, mainly because my wife was watching it with me and she doesn't want to watch it now, but I bet she would mind if I watch it alone. And also I didn't feel like it much.
• The Fades - BBC Three fucked up badly. They cancelled the show in favour of Being Human's fifth season. You see, it has vampires and werewolves in it. Wankers!
• Hidden - Four episode miniseries from the BBC about the dirtyworks of the British political system. Still haven't watched it.
• The Walking Dead - I am still watching it, and the new season seems to introduce a real threat: other live humans. Makes sense, but how nice can it be, after the emotional drama crap they pulled last season?
• A Game of Thrones - The show is moving so fast, they had to change the story a little. At every episode I get to hear "Oy! that wasn't in the book!" from the wife. Of course it wasn't, dear, it had no pictures! Mean jokes aside, the show is solid, but better for those not having read the books.
• Awake - I didn't start watching it an meanwhile it was cancelled. I have no idea if I will ever watch that lone season.
• Black Mirror - it was brilliant. Three separate sci-fi stories in three stand alone episodes, but high quality stuff. I hope the Brits make more.
• Boss - season 2 has started and I haven't seen one episode.
• Great Expectations - three episodes in all, another take on the Great Expectations story. I thought the wife would want to watch it, but she did not. I don't think I will watch it alone and, anyway, it's not really a TV series, more like a three part movie.
• L5 - the second episode of this VODO show still hasn't been released. I wonder if they will ever do release it. I liked the first one.
• Mad Men - still great, I've watched the fifth season and can't wait to see the sixth. Jared Harris has left the show, and I really liked him and his character.
• Misfits - next season is expected to start in late October. I wonder why so many of its stars left the show, but the show still goes on.
• Pioneer One - I have no idea if there will ever be a second season. It seems they have gone dark, while on the site there is a request for funding for a new show, called Control.
• Sherlock - I liked the first series and I will watch the second. The American's thought it was good, too, since they are making their own version, with Lucy Liu as Watson :)
• Spartacus - Vengeance - I like the show. Seeing that the story of Spartacus is so vast, I had expected a few seasons of this. However, it was announced that the next season (called War of the Damned) will wrap up everything and end the show. Why?!
• The River - horror TV show that I didn't watch, mainly because it was cancelled after the first season. I still might.
• Todd and the Book of Pure Evil - I liked the first season, but then it got a little old. The show was cancelled after the first two seasons.
• Touch - I have watched a few episodes of this. I can say that I did not like it. Keifer Sutherland is always out of breath in order to "act" emotion, but all he manages to do is make one wonder if he has a lung condition. The child is annoying. The story is, basically, that the child is magic and the people around him "help" him ... err... be magic? Only it's not magic, it's math, patterns and cell phones. Really.

Now for new shows:

• My Babysitter's a Vampire - Another Canadian fantasy comedy show. And it's better than Todd and the Book of Pure Evil! Well, it's basically True Blood in a high school and made for children and young teens. But I like it! Guilty pleasure. The blonde vampire chick is hot, too.
• Bullet in the Face - what a strange show. It's grotesquely bad acted, but in a way that makes you think they intended it like this and you are missing some kind of point. The plot revolves around a psychotic killer that gets to wear the face of the cop he killed in order to get revenge on his girlfriend who shot him in the face. It would be unconscionable to recommend it, but I watched two episodes. anyway.
• Continuum - A sci-fi show! Yay! With cops! Boo! Actually, the premise is pretty interesting and the lead actress hot. But it feels like a police procedural either way, which sucks. The plot is that a bunch of future terrorists and a cop are teleported back to our times. The terrorists terrorize, while the cop tries to catch them. Only some of the twists and some of the scripts are painfully bad. I watch it, since it's sci-fi, but it hurts a little.
• Copper - a BBC America drama about Irish immigrants during the American civil war. And set in New York (where else?). Have not started watching it, yet, but it's fresh.
• Longmire - another show about a cop. Only it doesn't feel that way. I actually look forward to the episodes of Longmire. The show is about a small town sheriff and it is based on actual books (you know, paper things with letters on it). The actors play well, the stories are good and the first season had only 10 episodes, so they each were good quality.
• Perception - another House/LieToMe clone, with this intelligent and charismatic, yet weird and rude, professor that specialises in human perception. And he helps the police solve cases. Bleah!
• Political Animals - this is a pretty neat show, even if it is about American politics seen from within a family that is filled with political people. It is not always exciting, but I like watching it, for now.
• Scandal - political thriller made by the people behind Grey's Anatomy. I haven't started watching it.
• The Newsroom - this is one of those shows that decries some aspect of American life by showing us there are exceptions to the rule, which invalidates the rule and makes us all feel good. In Romania we have this saying that the exception confirms the rule, so... Anyway, it is about unconventional people working to make "real news" and fighting corporate interests that push them to do crappy popular bullshit in order to gain ratings. People are very smart, quick, socially inept, endearing, quoting statistics and old English poetry and totally fake.

That ends this post. How much time am I wasting in order to watch all these shows? Well, it took me an hour and a half just to write about it, so you do the math.

I usually comment on big political events in my home country of Romania, although I am not really that involved. The thing is, since the end of the Communist era, we Romanians have chosen worst and worst leaders as time went by, every time being certain in our righteous beliefs that the new guys will be better. Hell does seem to be paved with good intentions after all.

A quick recap for those of you who are not Romanians (or don't share my skewed views on reality). After Nicolae Ceausescu (the dictator, remember him?) was gracefully deposed by way of angry mob and firing squad, we chose Ion Iliescu as our first president. From the initial tableau of a murderous dictator being replaced by a fighter for freedom the image shifted over the years to a delusional old man being replaced by a shrewd manipulator of the system. We did not like that, although the people were pretty used with a single president for the rest of our lives and elected Ion Iliescu twice. Luckily our law says there are only two consecutive presidential mandates for a single person, so we had to change the guy with another.

Well, if we have to change the president, we might as well keep the party, we thought, still entrenched in our habitual maintaining of the status-quo. In order for that not to happen, all the other parties coalesced into a big ball of shapeless mud and rallied behind a single candidate, a university professor, an intellectual. And he won. Welcome to the glorious era of Emil Constantinescu, who, besides being a dusty professor who had no clue about politics or management of any kind, despite being a propaganda secretary for the Communist party in the past, he was a fool with no balls. During his single mandate nothing was done at all, since he didn't know what to do and the ball of mud, now in power, disintegrated immediately after elections. Constantinescu's party, a historical party, important in the political landscape of Romania, all but vanished into oblivion.

Yay! We get to elect our main guy again. Let's go with what we know: Ion Iliescu, the former Communist, posing as a freedom fighter, equally loved and hated. Personally, I think he was OK. You can't be a politician and not be a bit corrupt or manipulative or even downright evil, but Iliescu had style and, while he wasn't an angel at all, he rarely did obvious blunders of incompetence, stupidity or lack of self control. No wonder they chose him an honorary president of the party, he was their only real politician! Now over 70, Iliescu got another mandate before a new champion of justice entered the arena!

The next iteration, two people fought for the most visible position in Romania: Adrian Nastase, a corpulent minion of Iliescu, with an intellectual allure and a lordish demeanour, versus Traian Basescu, a populist fellow, former ship captain and behaving mostly like a Romanian Popeye, championing for democracy and the people in the most crowd pleasing ways. It was tight, so tight that the real results of the election will forever be uncertain. Basescu won, while Iliescu's party won everything else. Nastase's allure and demeanour made him appear too arrogant in front of the populace and they could not possibly elect someone who looks down on them. Also, all that façade with no intelligence to back it was ridiculous.

We have now reached "modern times", the actors having relevance today, after two of Basescu's mandates. You see, as president Basescu immediately moved to impose his position over parliament and senate. If the people have chosen him as their champion, then it would make no sense to have his party as the opposition party. He wiggled his way until his party was in power, through all kinds of tricks and alliances. During his reign, Basescu frequently overstepped his presidential responsibilities, being, again, both loved and hated for it. Adrian Nastase, former Prime Minister, was almost forgotten, like any loser in Romanian cock fights.

Fast forward to today. Basescu is at his last legal mandate. The economic crisis and the abuses of both himself and his party have left him without political capital. Attacked from every side, the two main opposition parties having united into a single political entity (even if their ideological platforms are completely different), Basescu and his minion Emil Boc held on to power as much as they could. Until anticipatory local elections were forced and finally removed Basescu's party from rule. He is next. Again democracy has prevailed.

Or has it? The opposition parties are led by arrogant, relatively young politicians Victor Ponta and Crin Antonescu, more mouth than political clout or experience. Happy to have won the anticipatory elections they see the period until normal elections as an opportunity to consolidate their power in order to have a stable mandate. Instead, they fall into traps (some of them really obvious) at every step. Like the old Romanian fighters, Basescu has retreated and poisoned the wells behind him. If the local elections showed the lowest possible confidence in Basescu's party, now at every mistake of the new power, that confidence seems to grow. So what happened?

First Adrian Nastase is sentenced to jail for stealing as much as he could in a ridiculous and stupid way. The first major politician to go to jail, former prime minister, the mentor of now party leader Victor Ponta, almost president (remember the close elections), he not only loses badly, he attempts suicide when the police come for him... and he fails! He is the laughing stock of the entire country. Yes, that's how we are, if someone tries to commit suicide and fails we laugh at them for being stupid (sometimes we show them how its done, to demonstrate our superior intellect).

The silly thing is, even with Nastase going to jail, I would still choose him over Basescu as president. That is how high hate can rise in this story.

Second Victor Ponta, a doctor of political science, is accused of plagiarism in his doctorate. We could talk of this for ever and still find something new to say, but the truth is that everybody in Romania plagiarises in doctorate thesis. The teachers themselves point towards places where one should gather material for their papers. If you wrote something original (in that rare case you actually did something for yourself instead of Googling it and translating it) the teachers tell you you need five times as large a paper, so they point you to chapters in the books of the people that taught you in university. Take one from three of their books, write a conclusion and you have your five fold quantity of wasted paper. It's how the system works.

Of course, instead of just laying down and accepting such an obvious fact, Ponta half denied it (aka failed to properly deny it and again lost face), then in a wave of brutal and ridiculous moves, dismantled the plagiarism committee and even the Constitutional Court. Well not exactly like that, but it certainly felt like that. The populace is in shock, of course: didn't we elect someone in order to not have fists shoved in our mouths?, they ask.

Finally, as the conflict between Prime Minister Victor Ponta and President Traian Basescu cannot continue like this, the coalition of victors (yes, yes, a pun, sorry!) moved to impeach Basescu. And they did, only now, by law, a popular vote must be organised to see if they can remove the president from office. And guess what! Even if there are virtually no chances for Basescu to remain in seat, there will be so many votes in his favour that the power parties will lose immense political capital which will hurt them badly in the coming permanent elections.

In this light, a question begs for attention: Isn't it possible that Basescu allowed for the party change just after he carefully prepared his attacks against the opposition? Wasn't this all a big political entrapment? And of course it was. Basescu has proven himself a shrewd manipulator himself, a "playing president" as he himself imagined he would be. Instead of winning prematurely, the eager beavers stepped right into it and failed miserably. Remember what happens in Romanian politics when someone fails at something?

So let's review this long long story. We changed a dictator with a freedom fighter, only to find him a former Communist with great political skill. We replaced him with an intellectual, only to find the guy incompetent. We went back a bit, electing a 70 year old man as president for the third time, then replaced him with a populist alpha male with psychopathic tendencies, which now will be replaced, probably, by a loud mouth fool that fell into every trap that was set for him (and his buddy Ponta) Am I the only one who sees this trend as going down?

I have a pretty bad opinion of Apple products: expensive pretentious gadgets that impose all kinds of restrictions upon the user. So bad, in fact, that I delayed saying anything about the iPad I got from work until I was certain I wasn't completely biased. I mean, so many people using iStuff can't be wrong; it had to be me.

But today the bubble just burst. I lost so much time searching for simple apps that open one type of file or another, only to be reminded again and again that Apple doesn't support that kind of file. Why does Apple need to support anything? I just want the app that opens it. The "there's an app for that" meme doesn't seem to apply to most of what I want!

Basically, what I desire is to have access to the files I copy to the pad with the best software available for those files. I don't want to use iTunes, I don't want to split my files based on type and most, most of all, I want to either use paid or free applications, not something in between, like a diseased mutant.

Oh, maybe you didn't know about the "freemium" ecosystem on the iPad. You go to their AppStore application (a software so bad that it forgets the options you chose if you change the search string) and you select if you want applications for IPad and/or IPhone, free and/or paid, based on user rating and category, etc. You see something free that you like, you install it, only a button away, then you start using it. It may be a game or a utility and at first it is all well. And when you want to get a better weapon, continue to the next level, finish the workflow a utility is supposed to support, you get a "buy the full version". This is called "freemium", a disgusting offspring of shareware applications that makes that look benign.

You have the option to "jailbreak" your iPad. There is an app for that (hee hee), many in fact, that hack your Apple jewel and turn it into something that you have full access to. You get a Linux like command line, a place where you can get a lot of the software you want and need, all a button away. Apple does not like that. At every step of the way they will try to fix their broken machine in order to stay broken. So no, my naive friend, the iPad doesn't work like a computer not because they couldn't do it, but because Apple forced this on you. If I didn't give the pad to my wife, I would have jailbroken it for the principle alone.

But why? would somebody ask. What has Apple to gain from maiming their own device, creating crappy applications for a small tablet that costs as much as a decent laptop? It is all because of the AppStore, of course. If they can make a zillion assholes sell you useless junk that my 386 computer did better in the day, they can share a bit of the profit. So not only they rip you off with their cheap device made by labouring children that barely get something to eat, they keep getting money off of you, a trickle at a time. And, because you don't have complete access to the machine, they can force whatever software they want, unsecured, crap, cheap, but one that you can't hack, can't crack and can't use until, yes, you pay them.

Today I searched for an hour for an iPad application that would read .lit files. Yes, the Microsoft ebook format. There are CHM readers, why can't there be LIT readers? Apparently the "Steve" way is to convert the lit files to .epub (on the computer that I have to have in order to use the pad) and then copy them (with iTunes, not directly) in the ebook reader sandbox. If it happens for me to have a movie or some text files and maybe a picture in the same folder, I cannot access it with the epub reader, I have to move everything in its place.

Luckily I found something that even slightly resembles what I need: FileApp it is called, it allows for me to copy files to my Pad via FTP. I can open them, and that means they get copied where the program that uses them needs them (even if they are 4Gb of DVD image). Not a perfect solution, obviously. And you still need applications that can open the files you own without having to convert them.

I hope Windows Surface will be a huge hit, something that would sweep this crap away. Apple can buy Facebook and go to hell together to rot. When Android will be what Linux is today and Windows will be.. well, Windows, and the iPads will be relegated to the bottom, with all the other mini game consoles, then I will be content.