There is this childish game called "cordless phone", which funny enough is older than any possible concept of wireless telephony, where in a large group of people a message is sent to someone else by whispering it to your neighbour. Since humans are not network routers, small mistakes creep up in the message as it is copied and resent (hmm, there should be a genetic reference here somewhere as well).

The point is that, given enough people with their own imperfections and/or agendas, a message gets distorted as the number of middle men increases. It also happens in the world of news. Some news company invests in news by paying investigative reporters. The news is created by a human interpreting things from eye witness accounts to scientific papers, but then it is reported by other news agencies, where the original information is not the main source, but the previous news report. Then marketing shows its ugly head, as the titles need to be shockier, more impressive, forcing the hapless reader to open that link, pick up that paper, etc. Occasionally there are translations errors, but mostly it is about idiots who don't and can't understand what they are reporting on, so the original message gets massacred!

So here is one of the news of today, re-reported by Romanian media, after translation and obfuscation and marketization (and retranslation by me, sorry): "Einstein was wrong? A particle that is travelling at more than the speed of light has been discovered". In the body, written a little better, "Elementary subatomic particle" got translated as "Elementary particle of matter". Dear "science" reporters, the neutrino is not a particle that needed discovering and it is not part of normal matter, with which it interacts very little. What is new is just the strange behaviour of the faster than light travel, which is only hinted by some data that may be or not be correct and refuted by some other, like supernova explosions, information that you haven't even bothered to copy paste into your article. And, as if this was not enough, the comments of the readers, kind of like myself ranting here probably, are making the reporter seem brilliant in comparison.

Is there a solution? Not really. People should try to find the original source of messages as much as possible, or at least a reporting source that is professional enough to not skew the information too much when summarizing it for the general public. A technical solution could work that would analyse news reports, group them per topic, then remove copies and translations, red flag emotional language or hidden divergent messages and ignore the titles altogether, maybe generate new ones. And while I know this is possible to do, it would be very difficult (but possibly rewarding) as software goes. One thing is for certain: reading the titles and assuming that they correctly summarize the complete articles is a terrible mistake, alas, one that is very common.

I've read this article in Ars Technica and at each step was horrified by what has happened. This is one of those stories that need to be made a movie, with names and everything. But first, read it for yourselves: A pound of flesh: how Cisco's "unmitigated gall" derailed one man's life.

I've had the misfortune of working with Cisco devices a long time ago. Devices that you had to have bought from them in order to have rights of service or update downloads, with multiple versions of operating systems that would give you some of the complete features, but never all of them at the same time and with documentation that wasn't available unless you would have passed a periodical exam with them. It seems they have the same contempt for people in courts that they have in technical matters.

The main question here, though, is if a judge has ruled that all this was a perversion of justice, what will happen to Cisco? Where is the lawsuit against them? Where it the corporate responsibility in the US? And frankly (and amazingly) it frightens me to see that in the U.S. the hypocrisy that I am usually accusing Americans of is giving way to sheer acceptance of a terrible status-quo, in which free speech, protection of law and all of those wonderful words mean nothing when faced with a more powerful adversary.

This is a case of a bug fix that I made work, but I can't understand why the solution works. Basically, the story was that some internal component of a third part control forced WPF to throw an exception on the UI thread. As it was impossible to plug the hole in the third party library, and since its next version is supposed to solve the issue, I've opted for a somewhat ugly hack: I've handled the DispatcherUnhandledException event of the Application class and I've basically said to it to ignore that specific UI error.

I will get into details of what the error and where it came from was and how to handle it, but I want to focus on the fact that, since this was a fix for a specific class, I've inherited from that class and used a static method in it to do the above handling of the event. Well, it worked most of the cases, but not all. Some code that involved moving the focus of WPF elements programmatically would cause the bug to reappear.

At first I thought it was a matter of a change in the policy of exception handling from .Net 1.0 to 2.0 and above. So I've set the <legacyUnhandledExceptionPolicy enabled="1"/> option in the app.config runtime section, but it didn't help.

I've tried everything, from using the control instance Dispatcher in the constructor or in the Loaded event, to moving the code directly to the point after the application was instantiated and before the application was run. Bingo, it worked! I thought that was it. I've again encapsulated the entire behavior in the inherited control and ... watched it fail.

Let me simplify the situation: static code that doesn't work when encapsulated in a static class works perfectly when the same code is inlined in the calling code. Can you explain that? I cannot!

The code is simple:

    application.DispatcherUnhandledException +=
      application_DispatcherUnhandledException;

    static void application_DispatcherUnhandledException
           (object sender, DispatcherUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
    {
      if (e.Exception.Message.Contains("Hover") 
          && e.Exception.Message
                 .Contains("System.Windows.Controls.ControlTemplate"))
      {
        e.Handled = true;
      }
    }

Move that in a static class and execute it as MyClass.RegisterFix(application); and it doesn't catch all the exceptions thrown, although it works in most cases.

Can anyone explain this to me? Why does it matter where the code is?

People who know me also know about the Law of Siderite: never use any Microsoft product until it has reached a second service pack or release. That has been true for me, like a skewed Moore law, since Windows 95 OSR2 (also known as Windows 96). But I had to break my own legal advice and try to install Visual Studio 2010 Service Pack 1.

There are several reasons for this, one of them being that VS2010 had a few relatively important bugs and I am using the tool at work every day and at home when I get the time. So not only did I not wait for a Service Pack 2, I've gone and installed the beta version! And guess what? It installed without any problems and fixed most of the bugs that annoyed me, if not all. Yay, for Microsoft! But then I had to install ASP.Net MVC, which needed as a prerequisite VS2010 SP1 and so I went and installed the Release Candidate. That is, the version that should be like the beta, only better. This is the story of that fateful decision:

• Step 1: Start ASP.Net MVC3 installer. Result: Fail!
• Step 2: Start Visual Studio 2010 Service Pack 1 installer, the small 500kb version. Result: fail.
• Step 3: Download the .iso version and run. Result: fail.
  
• Step 4: Reinstall Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate
  a) Uninstall Visual Studio 2010. Result: fail.
  b) Use Microsoft Installer Cleanup Utility on Visual Studio. Install VS2010 (without VB or VC++). Result: Success!
• Step 5: Install VS2010 SP1
  a) .iso version. Result: fail!
  b) Web Platform Installer version (new fancy Microsoft tech). Result: fail!
  
• Step 6: Install Web Developer Express (free) + VS2010 SP1 from Web Platform Installer. Result: SP1 core fail! SP1 Asp.net success!?!

Bottom line: Now ASP.Net MVC seems to be working, with Razor syntax highlighting and intellisense, but the SP1 core is not installed. Visual Studio help window shows me that I have the Rel(ease) version, not SP1. I don't know what will blow up when I try it. Luckily, all this happened at home, not at work, therefore I haven't broken my main working tool.

My conclusion is that somehow you need to install the (useless, if you have Visual Studio) Visual Web Developer Express in order for the ASP.Net SP1 to work. This allows for different web engines, like Razor. SP1 doesn't work though. If you have the beta installed, try to use the Web Platform Installer to install Web Developer Express as well as the Visual Studio SP1. If it fails, look at the last section and see what got installed. Maybe you get the best of both worlds. I will be trying another Visual Studio version, but as the whole process takes ages, be warned.

Let me say that again, so it's perfectly clear: the install process of Visual Studio 2010 Service Pack 1 plus Visual Web Developer Express via the Web Platform Installer tool took me 12 hours! I did not have to press anything, it wasn't a case of trial and error, I just ran it, it said "installing 2 out of 12" for 12 hours in a row, then it partially failed. And the Web Platform Installer seems the best solution so far!

Today I've read this article in the Romanian press about a dog "shelter" where animal protection organisations found hundreds of dead dogs. They have tried to enter to investigate as did the news and later the police. What I found interesting is the reaction of the people there: they barricaded themselves inside and refused access even to the police. They panicked, yes, but it was more than that.

I believe it was the shock felt by people who do some atrocious thing because they were ordered to or because they didn't know what they were in for. They start doing it and realize almost immediately that they can't possibly want this. But they continue to do it because a) they started already and stopping would be an admission of guilt and fault b) people around them do the same thing c) someone said it was the right thing to do. It all falls apart when other people try to examine what they did, though, as they realize, imagining what others would think, that they cannot possibly get over what they did. As they had projected responsibility on their superiors, now they project anger and rejection on the witnesses of their actions. But they actually hate themselves in those moments.

In the end, no one cares what the reason was. Maybe the official explanation that they were all terminally ill dogs is correct after all. But the emotional trauma felt by the people that did this, looking those animals in the eyes and then killing them while the barks of dogs turn to frightened squeals as they run from corner to corner in sheer terror, from this inability to care for random animals and people that work for you, from this I would make a story worth publishing.

It started brilliantly: a Stargate series off-shoot that takes place in a very distant galaxy on a ship that runs itself with a bunch of stranded humans on it. And Robert Carlyle plays the role of the grumpy scientist! The feel of the show moves away from green pastures and ridiculous Goa'uld with their Jaffa and their sticks and goes to a much darker place where human nature and politics define the game, not only blazing heroism and implausible luck.

And then... people wanted their fucking green pastures! The ratings were in the millions, but still not enough for the greedy networks who decided to cancel the show. To be honest, it is not only the fault of idiotic executives and imbecile TV viewers, but also of the show writers. But the number of solid episodes so outnumbers the number of faulty ones that the blame cannot in good faith be attributed to the people working on the show. The actors played well, the scripts were mostly interesting and consistent. There were no self referential or parody episodes at all and the humour was left to the situation, not the mandatory smart quote before springing into action.

Of course, the potential of the show was mostly wasted in the so many average episodes in which they found a stargate, dialed in, then proceeded with the almost the same ideas as in the other Stargate shows, but there was a major difference even then: people has their own agendas, they pondered on their role in all of this, not just acted like automatons playing the same part over and over.

So yes, I think this show could have benefited from the slowly rising tide of people that don't watch shows the first time they air, but much later, when they ask their friends "do you know any good sci-fi series?" and someone answers "Have you seen Stargate Universe? It's awesome!". But no. If random morons who wouldn't understand a stick if it didn't hit them with the end they expect don't like the show, it must be cancelled. I've heard people react to Universe with repulsion and even hate. "It is not in the spirit of the Stargate shows that I liked!", they said. Well, I am sorry to tell you, but that spirit is the spirit of Harry Potter, Tom and Jerry and Prince Charming: impossible situations with incredible solutions from people that cannot exist. The ever successful recipe of "heroic people with which you would identify [for no real reason] battle the odds and succeed every time. And they do it smiling!" it nothing but a fairy tale. You are watching bed time stories. And yes, I want my bed time stories as well, but not the three year old ones!

I dedicate this post to so many people that believed they thought they understood Stargate Universe and similar shows that got cancelled for no good reason: you are idiots!

A bit late to the party, I finally found out that there was a mass escape from a Khanadahar prison. Apparently, Taliban forces have dug a tunnel from outside the Afghan prison and liberated about 500 of their peers. This is a blow to the local government and their western allies, the news say. I, however, cannot help but root a little for the underdog and think of the classic The Great Escape. In that film, allied prisoners of war were digging a tunnel to escape Nazis. Will they do a similar film about the Talibans now? I would. It would probably be both funny and tragic, navigating through all the incompetence, corruption, shrewdness and tension. As for the "western allies"... I would be a little proud. "Look, ma! They have grown so much, our children! They are not blowing themselves up, they are organising, planning for months in advance and finally building something. It's just a tunnel now, but I am so proud!".

Don't you hate haters? Never mind that. This kind of question is similar in logic to the CrashIE site that I've just visited (and of the malignant piece of code there - do not open the site with Internet Explorer). Basically, CrashIE is a hater site for Internet Explorer that crashes said browser or at least makes it enter a heavy CPU load cycle. The "solution", they say, is to use better browsers, and you get a nice selection of Opera and Safari and, just to be politically correct, a FireFox icon at the bottom of the page, in between the two other sites that the guy did.

Haters always lose in the end, and this Stanley Shilov will be no exception. No wonder that on his blog he is discussing using Java and Firefox on Ubuntu systems. His extensive experience with Internet Explorer is the thing that probably made him find the hidden bug that a browser will crash if you put it in an infinite loop.

How much of an asshole can you be in order to make a site that will crash some random's guy browser in order to advertise your stupid spellchecker site? BTW, I am writing this in Google Chrome, making said site useless, since it spell checks automatically in any textarea element. Is that the reason what there is no Google Chrome icon on CrashIE?

Bottom line is that you suck ass, Stanley! When I was happy using IE3.0 you weren't even born. I hate you! ;) And, BTW, this is NOT the kind of site that the CodeProject newsletter should have linked to. I am very disappointed in you, guys!

I started writing a long argumentative post about design patterns. But what is the use? They are abstract concepts that get cemented in the development industry by some influential people or some widespread adoption. Then you get to learn them in order to answer stupid job interview questions. In real life you either don't use them or they are abstracted in the programming language or framework you are using.

You dream of getting to work on your own framework so that the entire company would see how awesome you are, but you will only get to write stupid code for web shops and CRMs. And your life gets to its apogee when the architect who does the company framework or some company middle manager/owner tells you how important they are to know for your work. And you blame yourself for being so stupid and vow to spend your entire free time learning, and you read and you go to the water cooler and say "Hey, Bob, did you know the Adapter pattern is so cool?" and Bob looks at you like you are from another planet and goes to fix the latest "Font is too large in the toolbar menu" bug.

Bottom line: it's a chicken and egg thing. They need you to know as much formal programming stuff as possible so you can improve their crappy work and learning environment, while you need to work in a good work and learning environment so you can get better. The result is always an average soup of meh!

Just a month ago, overwhelmed by a number unbelievable claims from companies and lawyers at that time, I wrote the blog entry titled Ridiculous self importance, relaying what I thought of those claims. And yet now I am forced to write another one. See what happens when people don't read my blog? :)

Let's start with the already blogged move by Red-Gate to unilaterally rescind a promise they took to keep Reflector free. Just follow the link to the story for details, but keep in mind the general idea: a software company makes a promise that is completely ignored later on.

Moving on to EA Games. Like any commercial company that reaches a certain critical size, they become assholes. I am talking about the game Dragon Age II, a game that EA Games promised in the forums it would not feature SecuROM, but it does (read article here)! The company also completely fails to notify the game buyers that the feature is there. Another article then tells us the story of a player that bad mouthed the company and got banned from the company forums for 72 hours. But during that time, the Dragon Age II game he bought could not be played, either. That really sounds a bit 1984, doesn't it? The screen device watches what you say and then punishes you. Welcome to the future!

The last article (one can only hope) in the asshole saga is about Twitter. This service that I could never find a use for has grown exponentially because of two factors: the social paradigm and the API that allowed people to make their own software on top of Twitter. Having reached the critical size, Twitter now publicly announced that it doesn't need third party applications anymore. "Thank you, guys, but we will be making the money from now on. Thanks again!". This is one of the reasons why I distrust the cloud idea. I give enough control to Google deciding what is relevant for my queries (and hosting this blog :) ) to give it or other cloud providers the physical ownership of my business.

I believe these stories are related to the recent efforts to regulate the Internet and not only that, but also how you will be permitted to use your own computer or mobile device. Just like weird events before World Wars, they are only the predictors of an era in which the web will be increasingly controlled and will become just another commercial platform for companies. These events that look morally and logically absurd are attempts to shift the regulatory framework in a direction or the other, while we remain blissfully ignorant of the battle over our heads.

Hmm, mentioning 1984 and predicting World Wars... am I becoming paranoid? Well, I hope so, because the alternative is that I am right.

I am the kind of guy that uses a piece of software until he has a really good reason to change it. I don't try new stuff if I am satisfied with what I've got and I am all for second chances when mistakes are made. After all, I am not immune to the occasional error. However, from this day on I am fully switching from Internet Explorer to Chrome.

Wipe that smirk off your face, I happen to think that IE is a reasonable browser and, given the hypothetical situation where Google would have made their browser compatible with Internet Explorer rather than the standards, you would all curse at FireFox right now. Besides, this is not about the standards at all. Firefox is still not on my list of available choices. It is sluggish, pretentious and buggy.

The thing is that parameters have changed. I now use the browser to quickly get answers to questions or to open RSS feed blog articles. Before I was using it to make ASP.Net applications and web applications and I still think Internet Explorer 8 developer tools are nicer and easier to use than Firebug, not to mention the horrible confusing developer tools on Chrome. Now I am free (partially) of web development and I can rejoice. Also, sites were more compatible with IE than any "standard" browser and it is not the case any more.

The downloading window from Internet Explorer always made more sense to me: have an option of Open, Save and Cancel and do it in another process so you can close the windows that spawned the download. Then it opens or you just go to the file and use it, you know where you saved it. I think this is the only thing I will miss from Internet Explorer, though.

Let's summarise:

• Chrome opens instantly, letting you write something in the address bar immediately and having autocomplete for search term as well as web addresses. Internet Explorer blocks the CPU for a second or two and, even if it lets you write something in the address bar, it hickups just so that what you wrote is truncated. Firefox is so keen to update every fucking extension that it takes forever to start. Yeah, I know, FF4 is way better. Not compared to Chrome it isn't.
• Internet Explorer is supposed to support the new Silverlight wonder technology. Unfortunately, every single SL video I open is sluggish, blocks my mouse, doesn't respond to simple commands like Space to pause and arrows to skip and every Silverlight app is alower than their Flash counterpart. I've just wasted one hour today to uninstall with a special tool the older Silverlight version as the installer for the new one brutally stopped with a "generic error message". Well, screw that! I would rather download the videos and run them in a "generic" video player
• Javascript: it works 8 times faster on Chrome that on Internet Explorer 8. I know they've just released Internet Explorer 9, but it won't work on Windows XP. I have an old computer, it works fine, I want a browser for it without buying a trillion dollar Windows 7 license. You can't provide it for me, Microsoft!
• HTML5: it is supported in Chrome. If I ever want to start web dev again, I would go with that
• Extensions: I am not a big fan of extensions as they slow the browser down. I do prioritize speed. However, I have AdBlock Plus installed on Chrome and I couldn't install it (even if I have tried emulating it) on Internet Explorer. Having no flashing nonsense on a page when I am reading the text on it is wonderful. Try it!

I could find even more reasons if I think about it longer. Like a long relationship going bad, you start noticing all the things you hated only after you break up, but break it up I do. So there it is, found me a new girlfriend and she is chrome shiny.

From early ages we learn to listen to the people around us, but only at a later time we get to understand that what those people are saying may not be true or in our advantage. I believe this sets us up for the rest of life to partially believe even the most ridiculous claims for the sole reason that someone has uttered them. And who better to take advantage of this than politicians and lawyers.

Check out these stupid ideas:

• Ad blocking may not be entirely legal - In other words, if someone were to help you personally to avoid all the annoying flashing and blinking and popping ads on a site, they would infringe some law of revenue. While this may sound preposterous, try googling for AdBlockPlus and you will see a myriad pages accusing successful ad-blockers of diminishing web site revenues. And if you think this is just the lament of sore losers happy to distribute their content at almost no cost on the Internet, but wanting to take money from you unencumbered, or if you think that being your browser, your computer and your money paying for the connection you should have some sort of rights, check this out: CoralQQ author arrested in 2007.
• Free Internet porn is unfair competition to pay sites! - I may soon be accused of distributing free content on my blog as unfair competition to the ad ridden ones, if that is the case. I sure wouldn't want to hurt those, no sir. I find it terribly funny that the case against free porn was dismissed as an action designed to censor free speech (in legal terms a SLAPP).
• Making software that allows one to make better use of software or a device, be it a computer, XBox, PlayStation or IPhone, is illegal! - As you can see from the Wikipedia link someone wrote in the first paragraph "The distribution and use of cracked copies is illegal in almost every developed country". Major arrested development! You may have heard that recently the unhackable PlayStation3 has been hacked. The funny thing is that with each new version, Sony seems to remove functionality, making PlayStation one of the few devices that are better old than new. When they found out about the hack Sony started a major law action against sites that post the hack solution for their crappy console. Apparently, their perspective is that you never owned the console, but you "rented it", while spending time to make software that allows you, the user, to do what you want with the thing you paid good money for, but is still not yours, it's illegal. They phrase it in a very funny way, too, saying that the hacking actions "are circumventing effective protection methods". Well, they aren't very effective, now, are they?
• Major sites that distribute large content like video should pay extra; people watching should pay extra, too; ISPs should pay a lot; the Internet should be split into low rent and high rent areas. One might argue that since one does pay for the Internet connection at both ends, it should not be an issue what they are doing with it. That may be too late for Canadians, who always seemed very decent to me, as they got a new law voted on the 25th of January allowing Usage Based Billing for ISPs. People are now outraged and are protesting rather than swallow it, but already the coolness of Canada has been forever sullied in my eyes.
• Using encryption of your own data on your own device is illegal! - The Indian government demanded that Blackberry find a way to allow authorities to read the encrypted data on their devices or at least disable the option for Indian devices, else face a national ban. Of course, they "reasoned" it is all for the sake of the people and against terrorist acts. It now seems unlikely they will proceed with the ban, but still, the whole thing begs the question: how come they didn't ask this of other device manufacturers? Also, it may be of some interest to the reader that all major instant messaging tools like Yahoo, MSN (now Windows Messenger) or GTalk do not feature encryption. Skype does, but guess what? They also provide some eavesdropping tools.

The list could go on and on and on, but these were both startlingly ridiculous and pretty recent. Apparently, the DRM bug, the one that made people sell you things and then consider it's still their property, is still alive and thriving. Most such beliefs come from the power we give other by not reacting. It is easier for us to do nothing than do something, so it is easy to take advantage by positioning the average human so that he has to do something to thwart your plans.

I've just seen the last episode of the first season of Caprica, the series offshooting from Battlestar Galactica. There will be no second season, as the show has been cancelled. Why is that?

Let's start with something other than pure financial interests (oh, you TV network Guatrau!) and discuss the effort that was put in the series. You have a very successful and innovative series like Battlestar Galactica, creating an entire universe with its technology and religions and cultures, and then you go further and create a new series that actually reproduces the lives of people on those worlds. You get cultural criminal organisations, religious fanatics, technologists, robots, AI, virtual worlds, space travel, fashion, music, everything! This is the hardest part of any story: the setup. So you get the setup done and then you... stop writing the story because of low viewer turnout? Are you stupid?! Just tell it in a way that will please your stupid audience and also continue the effort, or can't your little brain get around that?

Then it is about the actor effort. God(s), I hated Clarice Willow and you know why? Because Polly Walker did a great job playing that character, down to the microexpressions and little scheming eye movements. Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales, even the teenagers and kids played well, creating really complex likeable or hateable characters. The creator, Ronald D. Moore, which I totally hate for ruining the end seasons of Battlestar Galactica, also did his best and I can see that it is a great show. And you are going to piss on that? The success of any project lies in the motivation to do it. All these people were motivated and you, money grabbing assholes, pissed in their faces. Shame doesn't begin to cover it. I don't want to shame you, I want you to die a horrible death, you soulless vampires!

And then there is the audience, your precious little numbers. Do you guys know why your network is called SyFy for? I will tell you, so you can say "oh!" with your carefully arranged heads; I guess this is coming as a surprise: it comes from the old name of SciFi, which in turn comes from science fiction. Now you fuckers get what your audience is? Or did you rename the channel only because you have no idea what it was about anyway? Kudos for HBO for raising the standards cause you are just letting them drop in the gutter.

So, in conclusion: Fuck you, SyFy Channel and all your executives, and as you are doing everything possible to stiffle creativity, I wish you a very creative and painful death!

I've just finished watching episode two from the first season of Pioneer One, a sci-fi show made by amateurs, financed by donations and freely downloadable via Bittorrent. That is just fabulous! An episode is done with 20000$ and they need about 40000$ more to finish the last two episodes of the series.

I thought of this kind of system myself a year or so ago as I was observing that almost all movies and shows I watch are made by Americans, through gigantic media outlets that are only interested in profits and cancel any good show on the basis of money alone. I was wondering: where are the people that would be to TV what bloggers are to printed press? Of course, writing an article in a free public place like Blogger is a lot simpler than making a movie, but the idea is there. Mangakus do it all the time, in the US the comic book is back, why not TV shows?

The series is really good for the money that went into it. Except for some clueless actors that play very small parts, the people involved act decently and the atmosphere of the show is powerful and enticing. The dialogue is also strangely good, as I am used to clichees being sprouted in scenes of a certain type and when that doesn't happen, I have an eery feeling of unreality!

Pioneer One is not the only show like this. There is a network, called Vodo, with the motto: We love free! that helps distribute a lot of these Creative Commons licenced films and shows. I really want this to work. This gets the money from people interested to watch and gives it to the creators, rather than some vampire distribution network.

On that note, I would like to also talk about another TV show that is about to appear, called S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Yes, indeed, it is a TV series inspired by the game with the same name, which in turn was inspired by Roadside Picnic, by the Strugatsky brothers. The show is made by the Ukranian company that made the game and you can follow the progress of the series by going to its official site. The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. show would not be freely released, but at least it is not part of the official channels for TV distribution. The story itself sounds cool and the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. universe counts about 40 books already (in Russian, unfortunately, but give it time).

It moves slowly, but surely. I am convinced that in a few years people will make and distribute work via the Internet, directly sponsored by the people interested in their creation. All the salesmen in the middle will just be bypassed and creators will be controlling the cultural market rather than distributors. It only feels natural: if you distribute something under a Creative Commons licence, there can be no piracy :) So there, what I've always said comes true: the death of piracy is synonimous with the death of mammoth distribution companies and all their bullshit.

I found this link on the Codeproject newsletter, a place where I often find news that are not reported anywhere else and opinions that are well informed and interesting. So, here it is: The Weakest Link: What Wikileaks Has Taught Us About the Open Internet.

What it basically says is that the Internet is open only as the huge private companies that control it are willing to allow this openness. Governments and companies alike can pressure key points in order to control the spread of information. The laws (which set of laws, btw?) are vague, allowing a limbo in which only the powerful have the upper hand. Two services we take for granted, like DNS and the newly found fab cloud computing are easily attacked or pressured into blocking access or revealing information.

But what I found even more troubling is the way this challenge of Wikileaks (because what else can you call wearing the underpants of the biggest bully as your flag) has been answered so mindlessly by the US. The government that is trying to get its hands and make an example out of Gary McKinnon had his most secret documents openly exposed, making it look vulnerable, weak. Its response is nothing less than angry mindless rage: denial of service attacks on the Wikileaks DNS, harassment of anybody supporting financially or technically the Wikileaks organization, very convenient rape charges against Julian Assange and so on. This is the behemoth that, behind nice faces like Obama's, does stuff like Guantanamo and has that huge inertia that would almost push humanity to extinction during the Cold War: "you mess with me, I mess with you".

However, this is a battle that any government has already lost. Short of a global apocalypse, the rabbit is out of the hat and the Wikileaks model will live on, regardless of who runs it and what structure it has. People have been shown to actually make a difference. All that media and movie onslaught of images of the evil government that can kill anybody at will and make everything disappear has been proven a myth. They are not invulnerable. Even worse, they can't handle the stress, they are sore losers. They lost information, but also face and honor. And the funny thing is, they did it to themselves.