Prism doesn’t really come out as a surprise. What is impressive is the scale of the act. All major communications companies, ranging from US mobile providers (Verizon, AT&T, etc) to internet services (Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Sony, etc … notably skipping Twitter, though) have joined hands and offered everything to the NSA for analysis. This is surprising as the data isn’t limited to US citizens, but it goes on on a global scale. Phone conversations (yes, american mobile operators but including their overseas offshoots), mails, social networking activities, etc and so on.

The excuses are well-known: terrorists, etc, as if we’re all suspects.

There were specific “areas of interests”: UK, Germany, India, Pakistan, China (although not much since american services are widely blocked there, lucky them), UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

Obviously, for Obama the problem isn’t that this kind of privacy invasion happened but that the people found out about it (like always). After all, it is the duty of the citizens everywhere to make the life of American intelligence services easier, no?

In retrospect, that’s what it always happened in all whistleblowing cases:

Peter Buxtun: exposed the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment where African Americans were infected with Syphilis by the US Public Health Service and left untreated to observe the effects.

Daniel Ellsberg: leaked the “Pentagon Papers” which showed the lies of the American Government to justify and gather support for the Vietnam War. It is widely regarded as the single most important event that shook the public support for the war.

W. Mark Felt: also know as “Deep Throat”, is the source the leaked the information leading two journalist in unraveling what is know as the “Watergate” scandal where president Nixon was involved in illegally wiretapping the Democrat opposition.

Mordechai Vanunu: in 1986 he exposed the illegal nuclear program of Israel in the British press. Abducted in Europe by the Mosaad, he was tortured and spent years in solitary confinement. He is still in prison.

Joseph Wilson: former US ambassador, exposed the lies of the US government that were used to justify the war in Iraq in 2003 (“What I didn’t Find in Africa”). His expose led to another scandal in the US government as the identity of his wife (Valerie Plame), was exposed as a CIA operative which resulted in several top Bush aides being sent to jail.

Sibel Edmonds: FBI operative who blew the whistle on colleagues that were involved in covering up illicit affairs of foreign nationals on US territory that resulted in security breaches and information leaks. Among others, she blew the whistle of the fact that FBI covered up information that could have prevented 9/11, as well as the protection that members of the Bin Laden family received following the events.

Julian Assange: facilitated the leak of thousands of secret documents that showed the US government deliberately mislead mass media with respect to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, protected the use of torture, targeting of journalists by US and Israeli forces, US efforts against nuclear disarmament as well as illegal wiretapping of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan by US and UK intelligence and many others.

Bradley Manning: the source of material for Wikileaks famous “Cablegate” scandal. His information contained details about the conduct of US and UK forces in Middle East wars (the Afghan and Iraqi War Logs) as well as the original video of a 2007 air strike in Baghdad which showed US forces intentionally targeting a group of unarmed men (mistaking video equipment for weapons, first strike), among which two journalists and then preventing other people from helping one of the wounded journalists (second strike) and then blowing up a building where survivors had fled to.

What did I learn from that conference? For once, all the glamour of Microsoft’s hardware and software didn’t matter when crappy services were put to the test.

Secondly, there’s no new age of consoles. Sony wins the presentation, but Sony doesn’t offer anything new of value.

However, there’s another danger looming in the background. Just like in an election year, the candidates offer promises upon promises, but both of them have a problem of credibility regarding what will be delivered in time.

The fact is, for previous products (the PS3 and Xbox 360), there were plenty of changes along the way.

Sony has a track record of DRM-support  that saw the OtherOS feature removed (and tens of thousands of customers joined in a lawsuit). It was the first promise of freedom that sunk with a firmware update. Then, the PSN game purchase system was update to add country restrictions to buying and playing games. Disk-based DRM saw some gamers unable to play games bought from other countries. Although initially the PS3 supported backward compatibility, it was swiftly removed after launch.

On the other hand, Microsoft doesn’t have a history of taking away things over night on its consoles. However, it does have a history of unsolved technical & software issues, of which the red ring of death is just the most famous.

So there’s the dilemma: can either of them be trusted to keep their word? Ok, Microsoft hasn’t really broken anything (just didn’t deliver), but then again there’s the looming patent of DRM based on Kinect detection. It’s not implemented yet but who’s to say that we won’t one day wake up with a must have firmware update, Sony-style?

And can Sony be trusted that we’ll really have backwards compatibility on games? Or that any of the promised “rights” won’t vanish overnight? Once the PS3 had the ability to install applications and to play PS2 games and that disappeared – and both were the top selling points of their time.

There’s a bet on both sides that if either producer can carve the the larger slice of the console market, then that producer won’t be a slave to game makers. But game makers love DRM and at this time, game makers love Microsoft more, they love country restrictions and they love restrictions on second hand games.

Buzzwords like “cloud”, “streaming” and “always-on” have managed to stir up spirits, heating up discussions and making heads fall (see Microsoft’s Adam Orth and the unfortunate tweet).

However, when all is said and done, it seems neither corporation has managed to neatly sweep the billions-upon-billions dollar market.

Sony:

The unveiling: the unveiling was poorly received by the public despite gaming mass media trying to put it under a good spin (“why do you need to see the console”). Sony’s hyped conference brought little information over what was already known (the only notable positive thing being the confirmation of hardware configuration). There were games (like we knew there would be) and there was a nice controller. Until E3 the company kept safe by not commenting on the above-mentioned buzz words.

The good: the console is powerful and small, has a nice controller (even though it doesn’t depart much from previous version in terms of ergonomics), won’t require always on, in the future you will be able to play older games via online streaming cloud, steampunk game (The Order: 1886) exclusive, consoles are not region locked, no restrictions on used games (so far, unless producers will do something about it)

The bad: the controller still doesn’t seem as good as the one on Xbox, there’s no word on whether already owned games will be recognized on the cloud, Sony has a track record on DRM nuisance (both console and otherwise), multiplayer now requires “+” subscription, their online community PSN is not as appealing as Xbox Live, their motion control system not as good as Xbox (unless you believe legends about ultrasonic positioning, but even so you still need to hold a controller), will launch later

Microsoft:

The unveiling: hands-down a textbook unveiling. They had everything in their conference: the console, some games, all in all a real showcase. What was particularly nice was that they didn’t shy away from any subject so in terms of complete image, the Xbox One is still the only product for which we have complete information after E3. Microsoft had both bad and good news for their fans and the media seemed to appreciate that the company was straightforward (unlike Sony).

The good: Xbox isn’t just a console but a media center as well, very good controller, top of the line motion control, the camera is included in the box, has more producers on its side and possibly better array of games, Xbox Live is a very nice system, will launch earlier

The bad: consoles will be region locked, games can be traded just once, no backward compatibility whatsoever (cloud option not out of the question, but nothing certain at the moment), Kinect is always on and tracking, daily internet connection required otherwise you can’t play multiplayer, slightly slow than PS4 (at least in theory), several used games restrictions

While the launch pack for Xbox One is more expensive than Sony PS4, Xbox One includes the Kinect 2 while the PS4 doesn’t contain the Eye 2, which, if we are to judge by the past, it will be a very expensive accessory.

Microsoft also has a couple of other advantages: gamers can both stream and record full gaming sessions, while on the PS4 you can only stream (recordings are limit to the last 15 minutes of gameplay). Also, the Kinect is a full 1080p HD camera while the Eye is only 720p.

The problem is that Microsoft seems to have been working hard at finding new ways to annoy customers while offering little to no benefit in return.

Of course, there is always a reason to do something (blocking second-hand sales, used games and trading stands for profit, but I’m not sure why I should care whether a company makes profit – a company should profit from a valid business model that involves giving consumers what they want, not what the company wants).

However, Microsoft stays in the game with its kick-ass motion control system (Kinect 2) and … that’s about it. Few people care about the mediacenter options (I do), few people care that Xbox Live has the best online shopping experience for games. More people won’t agree with seeing their game collection turned worthless. Xbox is primarily a gaming platform and when that role isn’t fulfilled to its best extent, then somewhere there’s a problem.

Sony will allow used games without restrictions (a really shocking move for anyone familiar with the practices of this company who is best known for innovative DRM systems that spit in the face of people who pay for their products) and has made good on its promise to deliver a console made by gamers for gamers. It certainly looks so at this point.

From a gaming standpoint, Microsoft has shot itself in the foot three times (price, internet requirement and used games) while Sony grazed itself once (the poor unveiling conference).

However, overall both companies have managed to suck once again without putting forward any much expected innovation.  Sony failed to significantly improve its console system apart from the much expected hardware upgrade while Microsoft added so much intrusive bloatware and limitations to the Xbox One as if it was trying to purposefully push people away.

Which is best? Difficult to say.

Sony stays true to its gaming purpose, but lacks innovation. If the Gaikai system will bring some backwards compatibility that will allow players to keep playing already owned games without extra fees (or at least with a one-time small fee), it might win.

Microsoft innovates more with its Kinect 2 and the improved tracking system, but that’s only important for producers as it gives more interesting options for motion gaming. But since none of the important titles make use of this, it loses significance. Microsoft has lost track of the objective to give an actual gaming platform for games and unless it starts listening to the backlash, it can’t win.

Social media is virtual. You create something from nothing, a “something” that is by definition untrustworthy.

“10k+ twitter followers can’t be wrong.” – a valid reasoning that is based on the unspoken assumption that the “followers” are real people. Are they? How do you know?

“Twitter is irrelevant” – one can’t be blamed for thinking like this, but the truth is that behind Twitter there are “some” people (I know because I am one and I know others). Twitter still allows you to reach others, as long as you pay attention whom you associate with.

The answer lies in both those items.

Having a mild financial crisis while your neighbors struggle might sound like a miracle in the economic troubled times of today but there’s a downside. Cyprus survived on the money injected via its low tax environment and ended with a lot of confidence and money to spend. It’s like being a poor lottery winner and just like a poor lottery winner Cyprus made the wrong bet in helping its troubled neighbor: Greece. How much did it help? Well, it lent over 150% of its gross domestic product (GDP). Its banks went on a credit spree building up the Cyprus’ own real estate bomb.

When Greece got the bailout, part of its debt was simply erased. Suddenly both the government and the banks of Cyprus found themselves with a lot of worthless paper (former bonds). With Greek banks also lacking liquidity, even those direct loans to banks became liabilities.

Now, the European Union has placed their crosshairs on Cyprus. Legitimately, Cyprus has become a liability for the Eurozone. Germany is asking Cyprus for austerity, the government of Cyprus wants to bailout their banks and everybody wants to know who will pay for it. The EU (mainly Germany) is ready to forward some money. But Cyprus doesn’t have any of its own, an effective bankruptcy. Under EU pressure, Cyprus thought about making the citizens pitch in directly.

Now banks in Cyprus are closed, barring people from accessing their own money for fear that paying everyone will force all banks into bankruptcy. People are effectively blocked from using their own money and another real danger is an exit from Eurozone which will see everyone’s savings vanish.

As mentioned before, Cyprus also serves as a fiscal paradise for a lot of rich and powerful people, mostly East-European, Russian, Asian. There is a lot of reticence in the Western Europe about paying up for these people. It is their money (mainly) that the Cypriot banks and government wasted. Russia could pitch in but it seems they are more likely to cut their losses and choose to pressure Cyprus to release any money belonging to Russian nationals.

The people of Cyprus seem to be at the bottom. No matter the outcome, they will become poorer than before, in the happy outcome that they will have anything left.

Ironic, isn’t it? The European Union that demands Cyprus to triple tax its citizens to save the banks is the same European Union that encouraged Cyprus into investing into Greece. Well, you didn’t think that Cyprus invested into Greece without someone vouching for its financial future, did you? The European Union scrambled for a bailout, giving positive signals for investors (like Cyprus) who though they could double tap on Greece: pitch in for the bail-out via European funds, while making direct investments that would skyrocket in the wake of the European intervention. The Cypriot gamble failed, the Greek bonds remain classified as junk.

The lesson here? Firstly, be careful whom you choose to lead your country. They will hold power over your money, your lives and your future. Secondly, keep them on a very short leash.

As I wrote before, I am appalled by their attitude towards the devices they push on the mobile market. Spam the market with tens if not hundreds of models and then forget about them in terms of support and updates.

The connection between a device and the software that operates it is a very sensitive one, which can make or unmake the experience of the user. However, when systems like Android throw versions upon versions with various degrees of enhancements, the drive is to migrate towards them. 

Samsung manages this by tossing out new models, with only former “flagships” getting updates. If you have anything less than the top of the line device, chances are you’ll be left behind. This is why today the vast majority of Android devices (over 70% by some accounts) still run Android 2.3 (as Android 3 was tablet-only) instead of 4.

What does that do for native developers? If you have an app to sell, the biggest mass of potential clients in found in the Android 2.3 crowd, meaning you will have to support an old, obsolete operating system instead of innovate on the newer features of Android 4.1 for example. This means you will have to employ some developers whose job will be to find creative workarounds for features missing in older versions of the operating system. Job satisfaction? No. Innovation? Maybe, from a certain vantage point (get creative in reinventing the wheel with older tech).

Webapp developers have it easier, but still not perfect, depending on the level of interaction with hardware features.

People will never change their devices in the rhythm required for a healthy and stimulating development market. Apple knows this. They don’t sell hundreds of models and they don’t push new versions every few months but most importantly they support their old models for years. In the Android world, Sony does it better while HTC fares ok (they have other annoying habits).

Some companies (like Blizzard or EA) claim that forcing people to be online at all times is necessary to fight piracy. However, in the real work, this practice has proved to be detrimental to buyer.

- Diablo 3: one of the greatest flops of the always-online practice had  many players unable to download and install the game at launch time. Later the vast majority of players found it impossible to login and spent months before the login process normalized and they weren’t seeing dreadful errors anymore every few minutes. Although Blizzard increased server capacity, the main reason for playability was that many people quit playing altogether (either due to the issues or due to the boring gameplay).

- Sim City 5: spending 20 minutes watching a countdown timer isn’t fun. However, thousands of people paid $60 to do exactly that, time after time, as they couldn’t login in the game they paid for. EA has since increased server capacity, however the issues refuses to go away completely.

- Starcraft 2: although you can play offline, it is still required to be online when you start the game, start a level or finish a level. What is particularly baffling is that whenever a level starts, you still need to download anywhere between 50 and 300Mb of data, even though you did a full install of the game (about 14Gb). Even with this model, Starcraft 2 didn’t have an easy launch: ranging from impossible to download the game to level loading taking forever, plagued with strange errors that compelled Blizzard staff to recommend ALT + F4 out of the game, the game caused severe frustration to players.

Treating gamers like cattle and corralling them into locked online environments is probably one of the worst tendencies in modern gaming, followed closely by the dumb map design (seriously, indoors maps in Starcraft 2 are linear and features arrows in case the fact that you can have only one way to go isn’t clear enough).

Therefore, it’s hard for me to admit that this is the best review of the new Blackberry 10. Not because I wouldn’t think it’s possible for RIM to market an incomplete product, not at all.

It’s the first phone of an entirely new system, despite being called Blackberry. Also, being the first, it’s quite normal that things will get tweaked in time. Same thing happened to Apple as well as the first Android phones. Microsoft is still working to tweak its Windows 8 mobile devices.

However, I do find some things awkward:

- the Blackberry chant was usability, which was great. However, reviewer consensus dictates that this was somehow diminished, between the new interface and new set of gestures

- BIS: while Z10 is compatible with existing BIS service, Blackberry itself is tossing BIS therefore the integration as we knew it no longer works. Goodbye using BIS to instantly fetch emails from all linked accounts in a secure manners: now you must configure all accounts on the device, as if you were using Android – but without the intuitive steps. Huge fail here!

Reviewers complain about a lot more, but this is where I stop. These two are *the* reasons to use Blackberry. The security and ease of access to emails that made emails (and BBM) a perfect replacement for SMS from all points of view is gone.

If I have to do the things that matter the most in the same way as I do on Android, why would I bother with an overpriced device that lacks usability?

Therefore, a movie like Argo tends to show one side of the events, brushed up Hollywood style (aka dramatized). Opposite that, you have movies like “Black Hawk Down” that go out of their way to stay neutral (as much as possible, having a GI Joe intro common to US military camps while on the other side no warlords could be contacted to give another vantage point) or like Kingdom of Heaven (which fill in the gaps between well-rendered historical events with fantasy, also taking well defined liberties such as combining two historical personas into one).

Where does Argo sin?

Firstly, diminishing the role of the Canadian and British diplomatic missions. Despite its involvement  the CIA didn’t do much except for making up the story and bringing in a master forger. The Canadian ambassador setup the environment (eg: setting up a routine that would not raise suspicions).

Secondly, the portrayal of Iranians doesn’t differ much from the daily news in US. Murderous, psychotic sociopaths. Affleck is adamant in making up one-dimensional enemies that don’t take into the account the political landscape of the time. 

Thirdly, the events themselves had nothing that spectacular. The tension of the hostage-taking doesn’t reflect the fact that weeks before the embassy had already been stormed, briefly. Or the fact that the 6 escapees were split and didn’t live in one place. Or the fact that they did not go scouting for sets (according to one of them, it made no sense). Or the fact that the airport sequence had no drama, they were not stopped, there was no chase and for that matter there were really very few Revolutionary Guards about.

Funny enough, the former hostage interviewed by BBC understands all the liberties taken by Affleck for Argo since he was briefly in the movie industry himself.

However, there is one shadow that looms over the movie which is greater than all the slight inconsistencies. The movie opens mentioning the fact that the democratically elected leader Mossadegh was removed from power by the USA and its allies. It also mentions briefly the reign of terror of the Shah, who had the full support of the CIA. It doesn’t mention however that Mossadegh was assassinated by a squad trained by the CIA.

In this atmosphere, it is hard to sympathize with the American mission. They killed the democratically elected Prime Minister, installed a dictator who turned mass murderer (for a while overshadowing even the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel) and the decided to protect said dictator when his regime was toppled. In essence, the actions of the CIA ensured that the Islamist fanatics had plenty of fuel to gather support to restore Sharia. The victim? The people of Iran and Mossadegh’s democracy.

Mossadegh had started Iran on the same path that Gamal Abdel Nasser chose for Egypt: nationalization of natural resources, wealth distribution to the people and a fair election system. It might have taken Iran a while, but Egypt came through on the path to civilization (despite the recent turmoil) and Iran could have followed but perhaps with a working democracy (Nasser’s biggest failure).

If you want to know songs that are like the songs you like, go here.

If you want to see some cool science illusions, go here.