Suicide solution

Ah, the drama. World economic crisis hasn't really ended, it has only started. Why? Because nothing really changed. Bunch of people received bailouts, whole lot of people didn't and lost their jobs, houses and lives, but did anything really change? No. Because to really change anything, you have to change the entire system instead of trying to patch up gaping holes in one that is already present but is inherently broken and will crumble sooner or later anyway.

But what is the problem with global economy? It's not really a problem with economy per se, it's got more to do with the trading system. The thing is, the very system encourages greed and actively discourages any kind of long-term thinking. Thus, in order to cure the problem and not the symptoms, one has to entirely replace the whole mechanism of global markets. And to be honest, the solution is really simple and consists of a really small number of things.

And no, before you start flashing your MBA's and economics doctorates, telling me that this thing is not that simple as i try to portrait it, i tell you - it is. If you think of it, any system, however complex it is, has a few core principles in its base, and if you change those principles - the system will adjust accordingly. There's no need to make a lot of adjustments, they will follow naturally as the market will try to adapt to new mode of operation. So fuck you and fuck your economic degrees. Here's what we gotta do:

• Kill the derivatives

Yes. Kill the derivatives. This is just legalized gambling, only difference being that really powerful players can actually influence the outcome. One can bet on Microsoft's stock falling and then assasinate Steve Ballmer - and win a whole lot of money on that. This is just not right. Derivatives are just money out of thin air.

• Kill the money market

Trading money for money is the worst kind of thing you can imagine. The money itself does not have any value, it's just a convenient method to exchange goods. It isn't a commodity. Again, money out of thin air.

• Forbid stock sales for 1 year after purchase

This will be a little confusing to most people, however it's really easy to explain. Stock was meant as a way for companies to make money by inviting investors to buy a part of a company. Investors will get some kind of rights, too - governance of the company, dividents etc. So basically, it's a win-win situation both for the company, and its shareholders - company gets shitload of money, shareholders get return from profits. However, nowadays no-one buys stock as an investment and as a way to make money. They buy stock to sell later sell them at a bigger price. In other words, the long-term nature of stock market has been overshadowed by narrow, short-sighted thinking nature of human greed. If it was forbidden to sell shares until a year after the purchase - there will be more healthy, long-term decisions made and way less market bubbles.

• Forbid money-making machines

Let the humans run the show. No, really, that's ridiculous - we now have machines that automagically make money, thereby making any human trader inherently on a losing side in short term decisions, because the machine is able to analyze and do stuff way faster than normal human can. The real advantage of human lies in the long term, because the machine has no way of knowing the outcome of this or that decision made by a company. It will, eventually, but anyway, the market should be run by people, because coupling infinite mental resources of a machine with human greed will result in disaster - with humans we at least can limit the impact of our greed.

These four simple things need to be done. The rest of the market will follow. If you boil it down to one basic principle, here it is - encourage long-term thinking and limit the impact of our greed.

Offended

Having just watched "Sucker Punch" (and finding it an insanely cool movie with hot chicks and top-notch soundtrack), i went out on the Internets to see if there's anyone else thinking it's cool too. To my disappointment, i found that barely anyone actually enjoyed the movie. By the way, i could say the same about e.g. Coen Brothers' "Burn After Reading", which i found absolutely fantastic (and use lotsa quotes from there in real life) and on par with Coens' other works (Lebowski being my all-time favourite right until Burn After Reading came out). "Burn After Reading" didn't appeal to the majority too - as if people don't understand such elaborate (if black and ironic) humor and prefer dick jokes instead.

But anyway, not many people actually enjoyed the "Sucker Punch". At least a lot of critics didn't. Not that i trust critics - quite on the contrary, i try to always have my own opinion - but anyway, if almost everyone is saying the movie sucks - well, it's either something wrong with me, or they just watched it with their eyes closed. Or maybe it's just taste, with which i'm perfectly fine by the way. I don't care for people who didn't like the movie just because, well, they didn't like it. Either it didn't appeal to their precious selves, or they are gay and have no desire for hot chicks, or something else - whatever, it's fine with me.

What is not fine with me is all these reviews focusing on feminism, on female empowerment, revenge, sexual violence and whether this movie represents this or that in bad perspective... You know, talks from all these people that walk around trying to find something to be offended about, and whine at us normal people until we put their whining into legislation (which we shouldn't, but sadly we do). All these feminists, psychologists, all these fat mommas that have nothing better to do than to tell me which movies i should watch and how should they look like.

What these people don't quite understand is really simple - it's a fucking movie! It's not a psychology educational film, or a manual of some sort - this is form of entertainment. Hell, i'm not racist, sexist or anything, but i love racist jokes, i love sexist jokes, i love boner jokes, i love nationality-related jokes (a good example is Hitler or jew jokes to German people), i love hot chicks in movies, i love violence, i love over-the-top bullshit. I love them not because i'm violent sexist, but because it's enterntainment. It's fun. I don't watch Kill Bill and then go out and slice people in half, because i do actually understand that a movie is a movie, and reality is totally different. I watch movies precisely because i want to get away from reality and i want the director to tell me an interesting story. If it's full of hot chicks, violence and racist humor - that's even better, because it's fun to watch. When i watch a movie, i don't care a single bit about if it objectifies women, or if it makes a statement on feminism, or if it discriminates against jews, or if it makes killing kittens look like a right thing to do. I just don't care. I know it's a movie, and i'm not dumb enough to be needing a "don't try this at home" sticker on it.

And guess what - i didn't need that sticker back when i was 6 years old. I grew up watching those cool movies like Wraith, Rambo, Terminator, and guess what - i didn't suddenly start killing anyone, or "objectify women", or whatever. If your kids repeat what they see on TV - get them the fuck away from TV and buy them books, for fuck's sake. Don't blame the TV - blame your stupid kids. If some muslim dork finds Allah caricatures offending - that's his fucking problem, because apparantly he has no sense of humor or is overly sensitive to certain subjects. If some fat bitch sees blood in a movie that's supposed to be violent and goes batshit crazy about it being bad influence on her kids - that's her fucking problem, not Tarantino's.

People don't seem to understand that anymore. Everyone's trying very hard not to offend anyone. Oh, let's not offend blacks. Oh, we have to account for muslims too. Don't forget the jews. And also Native Americans. And single moms. And feminists. And gay people.

IF YOU FEEL SO INSECURE THAT YOU GET OFFENDED BY A FUCKING MOVIE - THAT'S YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM.

Why is this a problem to me? Well, because at the end of the day, it's me who gets that politically correct not-offending-anyone bullshit they call entertainment.

Oh the conspiracy!

Recently, there been a series of over-the-top events - TSA abusing people in the name of security, Righthaven going on a rampage and is well on the way to destroying itself into oblivion... Somewhere in between those there's MPAA/RIAA, music executives getting charged with corruption... Then there are some patent wars between Apple, Microsoft, Google and Oracle, then there's Sony suing customers for modding their shitty console... Then there's this judge who says that WiFi is not radio communication, a debate of whether or not the monkey can hold the copyright... No shit, these cases are SO over the top it's way beyond ridiculous, and any human being with slightest bit of common sense will see that this is complete bullshit.

...But maybe that's exactly the point? What if people suddenly realized that if they don't do that, if they don't carry the intellectual property debate to the point of when it's beyond any common sense by any stretch of imagination - then we will end up in even more bullshit? Because, you know, put a frog in hot water - it'll jump out, put a frog in cold water and slowly warm it up - it'll boil there. We tend to get used to things. And recently there's been a gradual process of tightening the ropes around our necks, and somehow the majority misses that.

Maybe all these people are martyrs, who destroy themselves just to show how ridiculous it all has become? I would seriously want to believe that - actually, this would completely restore my faith in humanity.

The age of Me, Myself and I

People has always been selfish. In fact, self-preservation is our most primary motivation to whatever we do. It helped us prevail in battle against nature, and we sort of came out as winners. The problem is, there are two types of self-preservation - smart, and dumb.

Smart self-preservation is, well, smart, because in this case the entity in question tries to preserve itself in a way that is feasible in the long run. For example, take mushrooms. Just plain wild forest mushrooms. They are symbiotic organisms, meaning that when they attach to, say, a tree, they don't kill it. They don't eat up all the resources the tree has. Instead, they take some and give something back. Almost all the plants on earth are symbiotic in a sense that they, while certainly consuming oxygen and producing CO2, on the other hand use sunlight to consume CO2 and produce far more oxygen than they consume in their normal breathing process.

In other words, nature, for the most part, is symbiotic. It preserves itself. All the elements are interdependent, and, more importantly, serve a common goal of smart, long-term self-preservation. Even when an animal, or a tree, or whatever else dies, it becomes food for other surroundings. Everything is recycled, everything is highly sustainable and efficient.

In case of dumb self-preservation, however, the entity in question behaves more like parasite. It enjoys itself while it lasts, grabbing everything it can and can't handle, and is not concerned about long-term benefits, putting short-sighted parasitic self-preservation ahead of everything else. What is self-preservation in the short term becomes self-destruction in long-term, because killing your own habitat, your source of life force is not the smartest thing to do.

And no, this isn't another environmentalist rant, i hate environmentalists no less than politicians. This isn't about environment. This is about us. People.

Very few of us engage in self-preservation in a way that is even somewhat sustainable in the long run. And i'm not talking about nature, no. I'm talking about how we treat each other. We lie. We cheat. We steal. We destroy. We squeeze out every single drop of whatever we need, exhaust and move elsewhere to do the same.

Why is this such a big deal? After all, we've been doing this for milleniums, and somehow we're still alive. What's the problem?

Well, the problem is that while people don't change, our possibilities do. We can do more than we could do fifty years ago, hundred years ago, thousand years ago. Now, with modern technologies, globalized economics and weapons of mass destruction, we can cheat, steal and destroy on a much bigger scale than we ever could dream of just a couple of decades ago.

Bank crisis in USA crushed global economy. Just think about it - the whole fucking world has crashed into oblivion because some dumbass bank executives made whole lot of short-sighted decisions that are beneficial in short-term, but disastrous in long-term. European industry is dying because a few assholes thought that it's cheaper to outsource everything to China or India. Yes, it was cheaper in short term, but in the long run it killed what was left of European industry. Neither Europe, nor USA are major goods manufacturers anymore - all we "manufacture" is intellectual property, which while being a good thing is absolutely useless as a long-term investment. You can't build a spaceship with a bunch of software patents.

The problem is that we are moving towards our own self-destruction, disregarding both our past, and our future. All that matters for most people is now. And that's really sad, because they don't seem to understand that "now" once was the future. If we continue doing things as we do them now, in a few decades there might be no "now" anymore. It is such a shame that we're given so much power, and we waste it on useless bullshit and to take advantage of each other.

The land of intellectual property™

There's something going on with the world now. Everybody keeps suing each other. Oracle sues Google, Apple sues Samsung, Samsung sues Apple, Nokia sues Apple, Apple sues Amazon and sends a cease-and-desist letter to an open-source project, Microsoft (and bunch of other guys) sue Apple, Lodsys suing Google, Apple and small developers... And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It seems like there's no more innovation going on, only established forces trying to undermine competition.

The greatest hypocrisy of all this is that when those forces themselves are caught copying, or are on the receiving side of ridiculous lawsuits - they seem to behave differently. Take, for example, the recent Microsoft whining over Google's Nortel purchase. Google tries to monopolize the market, unfair competition, yada-yada - but wait, isn't that exactly what Microsoft was doing since, like, forever?

The earlier mentioned lawsuite involving Apple and Samsung - Apple sued Samsung claiming that Samsung blatantly copies iPhone. OK, fair enough, I have the Galaxy S, i admit it looks very much like iPhone, and Galaxy S II looks pretty much like iPhone 4, and Galaxy Tab looks like iPad 2. On the other hand, there aren't a lot of ways one can make a touch-enabled phone, or a tablet. They will end up looking awfully lot like each other in any case. The tablet concept isn't new, so isn't the iPhone form-factor - Apple didn't invent them.

Apple also claims that Samsung's TouchWiz looks and feels like iPhone's launchers. OK, so what? It's not like iPhone UI is entirely original either. And let's not forget a poor guy who's app got rejected and has later appeared as part of iOS. So no, everyone copies everyone, this is called competition. If someone makes a better use of someone else's idea - why the fuck not (the guy could even have a chance to screw Apple as there was something similar in the past)?

It seems like whenever a big corporation copies someone else's ideas that's OK, but whenever they see their stuff copied the same way - it's somehow bad. It's not, copying is essential to what we do. Copying is fundamental aspect of learning and creativity. You can't go anywhere without copying others. Of course, using someone else's effort isn't exactly ethical, but that's how open-source works. That's how innovation and competition works.

If you can't think of something entirely new - look around and make use of what is available. Android seems to grow just like that - it largely incorporates different ideas. They might not be all that original, but they do it right (mostly). If you can use someone else's idea and improve on it (or even just adapt to your situation) - why not?


However, the most funny things now happen in the field of copyrights and the whole shebang - DMCA, MPAA/RIAA, ICE and others. Really, you just have to look at the timeline of some libertarian website like Techdirt to see these guys in action:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110622/11170114805/uk-rightsholders-want-web-censorship-dont-want-public-to-be-part-conversation.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23422614744/ridiculous-assertion-righthaven-ruling-threatens-open-source.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110622/09371114804/mpaa-directly-lobbies-law-enforcement-to-be-its-own-private-police-force.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/17003314793/how-long-until-riaa-kills-best-music-service-around.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/04343514759/disney-when-we-copy-its-inspiration-when-you-copy-its-infringement.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/22414214796/collateral-damage-hunt-lulzsec-fbi-takes-down-bunch-websites.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/11130314767/prosecutors-vermont-dont-want-limits-computer-search-warrant.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/22280214795/mexican-congress-moves-forward-with-effort-to-refuse-to-sign-acta.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/22572414738/intellectual-property-infringement-thats-why-we-have-this-rice-to-eat-today.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/13015914790/new-filing-explains-how-domain-seizures-violate-first-amendment.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/16364214774/did-universal-music-declare-50-cents-own-website-is-pirate-site.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/11441714768/copyright-holders-claim-that-they-should-get-to-decide-any-copyright-exceptions.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/23383214779/righthaven-loses-big-yet-again-cementing-two-previous-issues.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/10505614766/microsoft-still-claiming-that-it-can-use-dmca-to-block-competing-xbox-accessories.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23410614742/giant-breweries-get-laws-passed-wisconsin-to-make-life-hard-small-breweries.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/04351314760/bittorrent-sued-patent-infringement.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/02535014751/sony-continues-suing-people-who-help-others-modify-their-ps3s.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/22543014737/righthavens-biggest-fan-copies-content-as-part-his-argument-against-copying-content.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/01370314750/universal-music-goes-to-war-against-popular-hip-hop-sites-blogs.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/19214314291/many-killers-music-industry-digital-era.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/03043214263/many-killers-music-industry-analog-era.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110522/22211914385/john-lennon-copying-others-music-its-not-rip-off-its-love.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/03142314726/indie-label-opts-out-apple-icloud-music-match-says-its-insult-that-tramples-copyright.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/16480114722/senators-unconcerned-about-massive-unintended-consequences-criminalizing-people-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/03443314715/is-using-photo-without-credit-separate-violation-dmca.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/02375914684/summit-entertainment-may-learn-that-you-cant-file-copyright-takedown-over-trademark-issue.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/03555214716/us-porn-company-wins-default-judgment-against-file-sharer-canada-guy-told-to-pay-64k.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110612/16170614663/mystery-writers-america-real-writers-dont-self-publish.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/10303314718/kutiman-continues-to-make-amazing-new-music-via-musical-collage.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/04035014717/those-who-settled-with-righthaven-consider-taking-action-righthaven-threatens-them-with-more-suits.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/01431614712/french-government-looks-to-create-great-firewall-france.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/14240014708/us-trying-to-extradite-uk-tvshack-admin-over-questionable-copyright-charges.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/13195214690/wisconsin-kills-wiscnet-because-only-good-infrastructure-is-att-infrastructure.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/03055214706/denver-post-sued-over-righthaven-connection.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110622/02043814800/facebook-roger-ebert-pointlessness-jerk-patrol.shtml

These are just a few entries you would find in there - many more are likely to appear. There's just so much bullshit in there it's not even funny anymore. Everyone's fighting for freedom abroad while locking down their own country more and more.

Skype, open up, or i'll kick your ass!

Some russian guy has claimed that he sort of reverse-engineered the skype protocol. Sort of - because he didn't completely reverse it, and it is an old version of skype, which isn't compatible with modern skype versions. He says the goal is to make skype open-source.

Now, i understand the motives. I think the guy is doing the right thing. All the marketing bullshit Microsoft is trying to sell us (IP infringement, spamming/phishing/scamming concerns etc.) is worth nothing. Actually, it makes me wonder - why are we having these news in the first place? What's the problem with open-sourcing the protocol?

Everyone knows skype on Linux sucks balls and has been in 2.5 beta for the last two years. Hardly anyone believes that it will improve much because of Microsoft's aquisition of Skype, given Microsoft's stance towards free and open source software. Everyone knows that skype is doing their business not on the protocol itself, but on third-party agreements (skype-enabled phones) and Skype-out services. If anything, open-sourcing the protocol would enable it to spread even more.

A pecuiliar detail is that the guy doesn't seem to disclose how exactly did he get the de-obfuscated Skype binary and all that code from VEST corporation. From what he writes on his blog it almost looks like he stole the code and the binary files, wrote a couple of lines of code and published it as if he did the majority of it. Of course, he doesn't claim that he did all this, in fact, quite the opposite - he repeatedly makes it clear that he actually has not done much himself. This raises another question, particularly that of his moral right to call his findings a "research" when in fact 90% (or even more) of the work was not done by him, and supposedly was not acquired through legitimate ways. However, let's leave it be for now. Microsoft will most certainly try to combat these efforts, but if Samba guys managed to pull off the reverse-engineering of MS protocol - there's no reason why anyone else can't pull of a similar stunt with Skype.


I think the problem is not the skype protocol itself. The first possible answer is purely business-based. If the Open-Source community will reverse-engineer the Skype protocol and open-source it - what will be the point for third-party phone manufacturers to make an agreement with Skype when they can take an open-source client and incorporate it into their phones without paying Skype? That will surely hinder a chunk of Skype's revenue stream.

Another possible answer is that they fear that the guys would uncover something in the protocol that is not very pleasant for the public to know. I don't remember exactly where and when i read this, but i remember reading about some US laws actually requiring the telecom providers to leave the backdoor open for government agencies to eavesdrop on conversations.

Now, i was looking for an alternative to Skype for a long time. Since i use multiple OS's, something cross-platform would suit me best. And i remember why i stayed on Skype in the end. I couldn't care less about HD video calls, conferencing and skype-out - all of this is available in the Open-Source domain as well - Ekiga being a good example. The reason why i still use Skype despite all its deficiencies, despite it not being open and all, despite Linux version sucking big cock, despite recent Windows version being bloatware, despite its Android version being incomplete (no video calls, no SMS), despite Skype not being the cheapest VoIP service, is simple - its superior firewall and NAT penetration capabilities. I simply can't connect to SIP network using Ekiga, while Skype always works flawlessly.

However, if the Skype reverse engineering project achieves its goal, switching to Ekiga or any other VoIP/SIP provider might not be necessary.

Terrorists win!

USA has finally shot down the Number One Terrorist, the most evil and feared man on earth... Or so they are trying to make us believe.

Why don't i believe that USA has killed Osama Bin Laden? Well, there are two big reasons. First of all, there's simply too much information that simply doesn't quite make up the picture. They track him down, get into a fierce fight and then kill him. Those brave SEALs guys (or whoever the fuck it was) do the Rambo thing, the whole world applauds, everyone's happy.

The biggest secret is... Why the fuck did they dump him at sea?! No, seriously, what the fuck? Aren't we supposed to see the guy? Is USA really expecting us to believe that they killed the enemy number one of the whole fucking world, and then dumped him to the sea just like that?

To me it looks kinda fishy. It is clear that the guys were doing something there, but Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with that. He didn't, and that's why they "buried the body in the sea" - no body, no problem. Hell, when Saddam Hussein was captured, they were broadcasting his execution to the whole fucking world - and now they get bin Laden and just dump him in the sea?

However, there is another reason i don't believe USA has killed Osama bin Laden. And the reason is that i don't think he ever existed. There may very well be Osama bin Laden somewhere in the Arab world, or even somewhere in the bin Laden family, but he wasn't the guy on the videos, he didn't bomb the Twin Towers and he didn't start no Al Quaeda. This whole bin Laden thing is just a hoax.

USA needed Pearl Harbour as an excuse to enter WWII. USA needed an excuse to enter Vietnam war, so they provoked an attack on their ships. USA needed an excuse to invade Iraq and start the whole "War on Terror" thing, so they allowed someone to bomb the WTC. It may not be an inside job, but to think that USA government had nothing to do with that is just pure nonsense. There are no terrorists, there is no Al Quaeda, there are no weapons of mass destruction, Islamic jihad or whatever. This is just one big pile of bullshit. What is the goal - we can only guess. Most probably money.

After all, what is so hard about asking a fellow Arab family (bin Ladens and Bush families are long time friends) to "lend" their name to a fictional terrorist, who would then be used as an excuse to bomb USA, invade a few Middle Eastern countries and make more money? Sounds like a plan to me.

iSpy with my little eye

Recently, another technological privacy-related scandal hit the news - this time it's Apple and its iPhone. Turns out, it tracks users' every step and gathers locational data. This is becoming something of a trend now - Google Buzz and Google Street View being particularly notorious.

However, what's most amusing is the reaction of public. Public goes "oh, iPhone tracks me? So what, i got nothing to hide". This is exactly the attitude that got every US and UK citizen under constant surveillance. I am not going to go on and tell you how much surevillance sucks and why exactly does it suck. If people don't give a fuck, that does not mean it is a good idea to exploit their ignorance.

No less amusing is the reaction of Apple. Apple first goes "no, this is bullshit, it's not tracking anyone", and then goes "uuuh, sorry, here's a patch that disables tracking".

What the fuck is that?! They, like what, didn't know?! Apple happened to not know that their own flagship product intentionally tracks people's location? Of course they knew. And they would get away with it if it wasn't for hackers to tear the OS apart and discover that thing. That is precisely why manufacturers are afraid of hackers - because they might have better skills than Apple's (Sony's, whatever) guys, and they aren't in it for the money.

However, this underlines a deeper problem. First of all, why this is happening at all?! Why manufacturers are allowed to get away with that shit? Why every device out there is trying to track its user's location? Government officials having access to such technology - OK, fair enough, i can at least relate to that (crime fighting and all), but private companies?! Come on guys, let's give any Tom, Dick and Harry my geolocational data, let us all live in harmony.

And second, why, when it is proven to be true, manufacturers can get away with "sorry, here's a patch"?! Next time someone catches me downloading movies from torrents i'll go "um, sorry, look - i deleted the movie".

No, seriously, this is bullshit. Aren't there any laws concerning misleading marketing materials? Of course, one can say that the words of Apple officials aren't considered marketing materials, but then what are they, if not another pile of marketing bullshit? When the company makes an official statement that is then proven to be not only wrong, but was an act of deliberate misinformation - shouldn't the company be held accountable for its irresponsible actions concerning such a sensitive topic and for trying to hide the facts so blatantly, when even software that reads that data was already released?

Maybe it's time for us to finally realize what open-source really means. Many eyes doesn't necessarily means more security, but at least it would be impossible to pull off a stunt similar to Apple's recent achievements.

Mobile

Sometimes it's very hard to understand those idiots who make mobile phones. For years they are pushing us useless shit - a glaring example is MMS. How many times in your life did you actually used MMS? I can tell you how many times i did. Two. In my enfire fucking lifetime. And it wasn't something i couldn't live without.

But this indicates a more global problem. These guys try very hard to make sure we believe we actually need all that stuff - MMS, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, HD-cameras, MP3-ringtones, gigabytes of storage, big screens... Who the fuck needs all that stuff?! I can understand having connectivity on the phone, but camera? Video playing? No one in their right mind will watch movies on a small ass screen and actually enjoy the experience. No one will ever be able to take good photos with a phone camera, let alone video. No one with self respect will ever listen to music on mobile phone without headphones - and all those stupid MP3 ringtones sound so lame and make owners of those phones look lame too.

The problem is, the phones don't have a target audience. In my view, there are several types of users with drastically different goals and use cases. The first one is old people, and this is often the category of users left out by modern technology. Old people don't give a fuck about camera, or MP3 ringtones, or gigabytes of storage, or games - there are a lot of things, really. All they care about is BIG BUTTONS, BIG BRIGHT SCREEN and ease of use. There is a reason why they wear glasses, after all. Such a phone should not be small (i.e. easily lost), should be as loud as possible, and should contain absolute minimum of functionality - address book (without all those "home number" shit - just name and number), SMS, Bluetooth and some MIDI ringtones. That's fucking it - a phone like this will be VERY popular in older people circles. And not only that, there is a group of people that are not old but still don't give a fuck about all those technologies.

Another group of people is technocrates like me. We want all to the maximum - processing power, connectivity options, GPS, RFID/NFC, camera etc. And a shitload of battery power. Here also fall the business people who need a phone as a workhorse. And a third group of users are cheapskate facebook-inhabiting assholes who need something in between.

Now the bi gquestion is - why do we need a hundred of cheapskate models? Why do all phones necessarily need to be lighter and with a cheesy design? Take a look at Apple phones - they actually have one. It is well designed, it is suitable for a wide range of needs, and it is heavy enough so you can actually feel it in your hand. I want to feel my phone. I want it to be performant and unrestrained. If there was a phone that was solid and well made like and iPhone, and with Android OS - a LOT of people would buy it. And it will be successful. It will literally own the market. Like iPhone does.

Fucking idiots. Don't make millions of models which are same shit in different casing - make a couple "old people" models, a couple of "hi-end" models, and a few cheapskate models. If they work well - people will recommend them to friends and buy the new models when old ones are broke. The market will be owned by whoever gets the "less is more" idea first.

Religion: you're doing it wrong!

No, it's not another rant of a raging atheist with too much time on his hands. It's something more interesting. Well, at least i hope so.

For now, a little disclaimer. I was raised in a western world, so obviously the only religion i am at least partially familiar with is christianity. Well, at least my level of familiarity with it allows me to quote Bible. In no way i am an expert on religions (or even christianity), so don't take my disregard for not-so-notorious Bible quotes or other religions as ignorance or deliberate fact hiding. It's not like i care about your opinion in the first place, but if someone ever comments on this blog - it better be a constructive argument, not religious flamefest.

OK, a couple of words on atheism. Some people all but jump out of their shoes to tell everyone that god doesn't exist. Another bunch of people bring lamest excuses such as "if there is a god, may he strike me dead" and expecting us to believe that if god doesn't do magic at their will - he doesn't exist. Yet another bunch of people are reasonable enough not to shout it out loud that there is no god.

However, the lamest atheists are the ones who aren't really atheists, but pride themselves on thinking and believing they are. These are the guys that talk about a universal information field, or some sort of supreme overmind, or some other bullshit. These people are the believers that are afraid of the word "god" because everyone told them that god is a guy that sits in the sky and does stuff, so they believe in something they prefer not to call "god", despite the fact that it is essentially the same thing. Terminology matters, you know, a psychologic moment.

Hello christfags. Hello muslims. Hello every other freak of nature out there. Some of these dudes all but jump out of their shoes to tell everyone that god does exist. Another bunch of people bring lamest excuses such as "if there wasn't god, my wife/son/granddad/dog/dick wouldn't be here today because <insert a horrible accident> and god saved him" and expecting us to believe that if something random happens that turns out to be good - it must be god's will, therefore he exists. Yet another bunch of people are reasonable enough not to shout it out loud that there is a god.

However, the lamest believers are the ones who fight because of religion. My god has bigger dick that your god. You have to eat this on wednesday and go to church on sunday. You have to pray every saturday noon facing north. You have to wear this and say that. Otherwise you will burn in hell. Load of crap this is, Master Yoda say.

The great thing about religion is that everyone thinks of it as a separate thing of itself, whereas in fact it's tightly connected to our own psychological matters. A religion is blind devotion to something. You don't have to believe in god to be religious - you can believe in science, or in glamour, or in money, or in music, or in white power, or in whatever makes you feel comfortable to believe in. Religion is no different from fanatism. In fact, it is fanatism.

Fanatism is not productive. The whole hoopla about things being black and white is getting too old. Life isn't that simple. This is what religious people have yet to learn. Mind you, christfags are much more relaxed now, since the whole science revolution started there aren't many active christfags left. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with muslims.

Don't get me wrong though, i don't hate muslims. It's just that i live in a multinational country, i see many religions and muslims are the only ones i have big problems with. In general, they are too fundamentalistic. They are too fanatical about this whole Islam thing, their Qur'an, their prayers, their clothing, their women - everything they touch carries a scent of absurdity. Moreover, they try to make us account for their stupid ninja religion. No, i am not being ignorant. It's just that if they are coming to Europe to live in here - better respect local laws and local culture. Eat our food, drive our cars, fuck our women - no problem, be my guest. Trying to change our laws to account for a foreign culture - no fucking way. They don't account for ours - why should we do so?

To be fair, christfags when faggy enough aren't a lot better. They try to dictate us which movies we should watch, which books we should read, which music we should listen to. Oh no, these rock bands, they like totally worship satan! Oh no, these violent video games got blood in them! Oh no, these movies got tits in them! Yep, better ask catholic priests about adultery.

However, the most funny thing about christianity (and probably other religions too) is that they totally got it all wrong. People are being told the same thing for thousands and thousands of years (at least by christianity, probably by the majority of religions), and they still don't get it. Let's go straight to the Bible and the famous ten commandments. Two of them are of particular interest - "I am your god and you shall have no gods before me", and "You shall not make for yourself an idol".

What does this mean? Well, if we remember the whole story with these commandments, it goes something like this: a guy walks to a mountain, there he recieves these ten commandments, writes them on a stone and gets back to people to tell them about these commandments. Pretty straightforward i would say. Now, presumably, that "I" in first commandement, is the very god that gave Moses these commandments. So, we as humans should not make gods other than him, and should not make idols.

Now let's go a little further in time and remember Jesus. He told us that "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in god". He also said that "Kingdom of god is within you". What does this mean? Well, apparently, that god is love and his kingdom is within us. Pretty unclear and metaphoric, i would say.

Now let's try and combine those two commandments and sayings of Jesus. I shall have no gods before love, and i should not make an idol for myself. Now, as a sane and critical thinking person i always knew that Bible is not a history book and therefore the stories inside it should not be understood literally, but rather metaphorically. In other words, don't try to follow the book, follow the ideas behind it. 

At first, when i was trying to understand those ten commandments, i didn't understand what the hell are these first two commandments about. I always thought they were extra and just were there for the officiality and psychological importance, and i always considered that the "main" commandment is the one that is about loving your neighbour, other ones were just derived from it (how can you love your neighbour if you steal from him?). However, later i realized what exactly the Bible was talking about.

And this very thing, this saying of Jesus answers all the questions at once. God is love. God is our concience. God is our mind, our soul, the spark of our creativity - all the things that are constructive. And we should abide only in our love. We should not follow our hatred, our anger, our aggression, you know, all the fun stuff that is usually attributed to devil. This is what the first commandment is all about. And this is where almost all the other commandments derive from - you shall not kill, because it is against love. You shall love your neighbour, because that way you abide in your god, which is love. This is the first, and only commandment one can ever need. 

All these stories about dudes making sacrifices - they are not there to teach to kill your children if god asks so, you dumb fucks. They are there to tell you that there can be time when something you love should be sacrificed for greater good. And they are there to tell you that god is forgiving, for he is love, and if you can't sacrifice something - that's OK too, because love will forgive. Our love forgives us, and we shall forgive other people, for we shall abide in love. Wasn't that obvious? A lot of people seem to have a real problem in getting through all these prayers, legends of ressurection and loads of other bullshit to see the real picture - it's not the story that matters, it's the morals behind it. 

Now, the second commandment is a little tricky at first. It says that i shouldn't make an idol for myself. Well, surely i can't imagine someone literally cutting out a figure from the wood and praying to it. However, again, this is not what the commandment is about. Since the whole Bible is full of metaphors, we must treat this commandment as a metaphor also. One shall not make an idol for himself - wait, i got it! One cannot treat anything as an absolute truth, or absolute lie, or anything absolute, for that matter, apart from your god - that is love.

You cannot have a book that tells you what to do (and by what to do i don't mean dishwashing, i mean more profound things like killing people), because that makes it your idol. You cannot have a man that tells you what to do, because that makes him your idol. You cannot have anything that tells you what to do, because that makes it your idol. You should only do whatever is abiding love, and always trust yourself and your love, not your idol. The funniest part about this is that christfags treat the Bible as their idol, and make an idol from something they understand as god - thus violating the second commandment. The whole fucking christian world violates the second commandmend. Now that's doing it wrong on an epic scale. 

Now, since the Bible is really a bunch of fucking stories that have a general idea behind them, why do they exist in the first place? Because people need something more than a simple idea. They will keep asking why they can't kill, why they can't steal, why they should love everyone - it never passes their mind that being egoistic and selfish is counterproductive, and you need something official, like a higher power, to tell them why they can't do all these things. And even this is not enough as there will be other people who don't get it and don't like the idea of some supreme dude telling them what they should or shouldn't do, questioning religious texts because apparently what's written there is bullshit. And it is fucking bullshit, just like any other fairy tale, but that doesn't make ideas behind it wrong.

The problem is that you just can't tell people the idea that they are their own gods and expect them to behave themselves, because they will erroneously think that if they are god - they are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want; and you can't tell people the idea of god watching them because some of them will rightly think that all that god thing is bullshit, erroneously thinking that the morals of the god story are also wrong. 

You need to be smart in order to exercise your freedom of choice for the greater good. General public is not smart. Hence the ten commandments (instead of two), hence the whole fucking book of stories that everyone treats as if they were historical documents, hence the whole religious mess we have today (because whichever way you put it, people still don't get it). People are unbelievably dumb, and no matter how many times you explain them not to kill each other and treat each other with love, they still kill each other and think of how to steal something from one another. And that's kinda sad. 

Now, just a couple of notes on heaven and hell. Since god is love, and god is you and your own concience, what does it make of these notions of heaven and hell? The way i see it - if you do bad stuff, your concience will eat you, and eat you, and eat you. You will have regrets about things you've done, you will think them over and over again, wishing to correct the wrongs. This is hell. This is god punishing you - you didn't abide in love, and that's what you get. No one can save you from yourself. This is what heaven and hell are all about - god is inside all of us, and it's us who will punish ourselves, not some great supreme being that needs your prayers every fucking morning. And if you can forgive yourself - your sins will no longer haunt you, and you will again be in peace with god - which is your love and your conscience.

A rather unorthodox look on religion, don't you think? Also, it's kinda universal and happily explains why you don't have to believe in god to be a good man - because there is no god to believe in, aside from love inside you. Praise the lord with your good deeds - it's all he really needs.