This weekend I watched the first double-episode of Sanctuary, the new series in the Sci-Fi Channel. If you're a self-respecting sci-fi geek, you probably know that Sanctuary was created by one actor, one writer, and one producer of Stargate: SG-1, and that it started off as a web-based series. The double-episode is, in fact, the first “season” of the web series, with the tiniest bit of re-shooting and, dare I say it?, “re-post-production”.

The writing isn't bad, the acting is decent (great in some cases, but unfortunately not the lead), and the special effects are pretty good.

Still, I give it a “FAIL”. Sorry, but it's just not interesting. There's nothing new, there's nothing that happens there to keep me interested. Supernatural creatures living in secret in our world? Yawn, that was cool in the early 90s. What, so the big secret of the “mysterious” Doctor Magnus is that? Sorry, that was already old in the early 90s when the rest of the premise was cool. Also, you just ruined the “mysterious” part by revealing it so soon.

It's also too slow on the first half, lots of talking heads and little plot progress, with the second half having too much action and little plot progress. In fact, plot progress tends to happen in “bursts”, which is, sorry, not good at all.

Good try, but I won't be coming back for the next one.

I think I've seen this argument for the first time in a Slashdot comment, years ago. I've since adopted it, refined it, and used it a lot myself; but now in light of the Android release, I think it's worth mentioning again.

The big problem I see with “Open Source” is that there are, in fact, two groups there. Fortunately the same is not true of Free Software, but even our arguing that it's about freedom still doesn't help... well, read on.

The thing with “Open Source” is: who is it open to?

Arguably, Open Source, as a vague, undefined thing, has existed for decades. But as a conscious, named movement with its own marketing, it spun off from the Free Software movement in the late 1990s, after the “open-sourcing” of Mozilla and the publishing of The Cathedral and the Bazaar. (Or, according to some, it spun off a few weeks later, when RMS noticed those guys were talking about something else and split off from the Open Source initiative.) Still, in hindsight, one can say things like the BSDs, and even the original Unix, were done more in the spirit of Open Source than of Free Software.

Now Free Software, with all its GNU/FSF writings, has always been very clear about its goals. We're here for the freedoms of the user. If you get a piece of software, you have a bunch of inalienable rights, rights that aren't being respected by most software, and which we intend to uphold and defend. Nice, eh?

Open Source people, on the other hand, seem to be a little confused about this. It's like watching two madmen (or drunks) arguing, each founding an argument on an entirely different premise. Some, perhaps still in touch with the “origins” of Open Source in the 90s, believe it's about being “open” to the users of the software. Others have adopted the belief (from BSD maybe?) that it's all about “openness” to the developers.

(More importantly, some of them don't realise Free Software ≠ Open Source, and mistakenly argue this in even more confusing terms; like the old fallacy that the GPL, and viral licenses in general, are bad for Free Software because they give “less freedom” than BSD-style licenses. They do, if you're thinking of other developers, who will then have the “freedom” to “steal” my software and use it in their own closed software, and not give back to the project in any way. I don't care the least about those; I'm writing software for the freedom of my users, and those have their freedoms enforced by a viral license. Now are viral licenses bad for Open Source? Honestly, I couldn't care less.)

The Android platform seems to be firmly planted in the latter camp, sadly. (Or maybe not so sadly; I rejoice with every Java-based product that fails.) It's “open”, first and foremost, for handset makers and network operators, and a distant second, to application developers. “Openness” for the end-user doesn't seem to even be a consideration. Now of course, both things are pretty much incompatible; being “open” to the operators means, really, “open” for them to “close” it in whatever ways they want; so yeah, no VOIP.

Oh well. At least I don't need to be conflicted about whether I want an Android device, whether I can stand Java long enough to actually like the OS. Clearly, that won't be a consideration, and OpenMoko — or, if they fail, someone else, probably using LiMo or FSO stacks — will be the mobile phone for me. Eventually :-)

You know what... I do understand and respect a family's right to believe any idiotic nonsense they want to. Who knows; it's a seriously messed up universe we live in, they could even be right.

But whether or not they're factually right is not what matters most in my book (which is not a holy book). Rather... their theories are grounded in a larger belief system, which has at its core a moral and ethical code. Telling the children in absolute terms that their parents beliefs are wrong, understandably, undermines the whole system, which in turn undermines the code.

(I'm not saying American creationists have a great code. Those are often the same people who are racists, xenophobes, or quick to judge someone by the bank account. But it's built on a good stem of what Americans call "work ethic", and arguably, it's better than no code at all.)

At the root of the argument is, in fact, a completely different wrong, which is the one I actually wanted to address in this post. The problem actually does lie with the (majority of) science teachers, who fall for the trap I call "the religion of science".

Good, respectable scientists almost never talk about facts. A fact, or rather an absolute rule, is anathema to good science; the only facts useful to scientists are the results of their experiments, everything else is theory.

What about bad scientists? Oh, those are frequently 100% sure of obvious truths, like, "the atom is indivisible" and "heat is a fluid" and "there's no such a thing as a memristor". (They're particularly eager to label things "impossible".)

The pattern here is: an open mind is the first pre-requisite for science, even more important than genius.

But in school -- and not only America, but many other places -- you only start hearing this kind of talk in college, or if you're really lucky, high school. Basic science, the teachers who were supposed to be giving children the basics of science and awakening potential future scientists, generally fall for "the religion of science". They "teach" absolutes; this is so, because that is so. Which is specially funny since some things they teach in basic school are known to be untrue, like Newtonian physics.

We wouldn't be even having this argument if school science teachers could behave like good scientists and formulate their teachings like, "evidence suggests that..." and "it is believed that..." and "apparently, ..." and, often, "this and that evidence points to the conclusion that...".

What, actually teach creationism in schools? No, now you're pushing it. Come on, the other parents also have the right to keep their children safely away from your nonsensical idiocy.

One more to agree with me :-) http://gear.ign.com/articles/907/907463p1.html?RSSwhen2008-09-04_103600&RSSid=907463

The Nintendo DS came out in 2004; the GBA, in 2001; the GBC, in 98. See a pattern? The next Nintendo portable should be around any time. My guess is, it probably was already designed by late last year, and they aborted the whole process, to incorporate what they learned from the Wii, and hopefully the iPhone.

Here is what I predict it will look like, in no particular order — I'm privately calling it the “Nintendo DT”.

• Two screens, like the DS, but both multi-touch, either 512x320 (more likely — that's “computer widescreen”, 16x10) or 512x288 (“true” widescreen, 16x9, might be chosen in order to make the device just that little bit narrower).
• No physical buttons, except for power, and possibly L/R. All controls are via touchscreen (and accelerometers). Or maybe it's too early for that, since haptic tactition emulation isn't usable yet; in that case it may keep controls similar to the DS Lite, making the bottom screen smaller (4x3 — 384x288). Possibly an analog nub. Two, if they really really feel like one-upping Sony.
• Video codecs and player built-in so you can watch your movies on the go (a must with the widescreen).
• Camera either built-in or sold as an add-on.
• Probably no stylus at all.
• Definitely no GBA compatibility. (But the homebrew scene will have an emulator — VBA probably — up in weeks.)
• Better Wi-Fi; at least 802.11n. And Bluetooth.
• Browser built-in.
• More built-in storage, maybe an SSD or even HD (hope not); WiiWare is making a lot of money, and for watching movies you'll need space too. Maybe an SD or MicroSD slot?
• Maybe music player software built-in as well. (Can anyone say MarioPod? Or is it PokéPod?)
• I wouldn't be too surprised if it uses Cortex CPUs.
• “Slave mode” where it basically becomes a souped-up controller (with extra display area) for the Wii. Hacked in two or three months to become a “slave” to a Linux machine; practical application for the hack doesn't arrive for a long time, if ever.

Oh, and I'll probably buy one, install some Free Software, and use it as my “netbook”. Sounds great for media and writing on the go ;-) Unless, of course, the Pandora arrives first...

People who know me are often amazed at my lack of interest on sports, specially during the Olympics. The question of “why” does arise occasionally, although not as often as you'd think. So I figured, hmm, that's a reasonable topic for a blog post.

First, I don't like competitive sports.

The idea of physical activity for fun or pleasure, I can relate to. You feel exhilarated when you bike, hike, or row up a hill? Good for you.

And the concept of wanting to “improve” your body, stretch your limits, is to be commended. I think.

But competing for the feeling that you're “better” than your (often arbitrary) “adversary”, on account of some extremely abstract, and usually completely pointless accomplishment, like running a ball through a loop? That's just ridiculous. It's understandable, since it appeals to many of our baser instincts, but it's not the kind of behaviour I'd encourage.

In fact, maybe that's the point: encouraging. Many sports activities — in fact, generally the most popular ones — are really updated excuses to engage in many kinds of behaviour we really, really should be working harder on leaving behind. I'd even go so far as saying, in my opinion, the love for sports in our modern culture is one of the (admittedly many) roots of the predatory, every-man-for-himself mentality which is perhaps the greatest obstacle to our evolution into a fairer and, well, more reasonable society.

And there you go, we segue nicely into the Olympics. The whole thing is, as I see it, hugely hypocritical. Its proponents, like many supporters of sports all over the world, try to pass it as a symbol of union and brotherhood; but at the bottom line, it's all about “my” country getting more medals than yours. It's not only a barbaric competitive tribal war, it's also a reinforcement of nationalism, which is another thing we're overdue getting rid of.

Feel free, if you want, to invite me for a hike, or biking, golfing, or even, if I'm in the right mood, a baseball game. But please, please, don't invite me to watch sports; while I understand and share the pleasure of doing it, I really see no point in watching it. And above all, don't ask me about the Olympics, unless you really want to hear how strongly I don't care.

Seems a batch of sites got unblocked. Wiki.edia (marvel as I blog in regular expressions) is accessible (again), Wikibooks, Reuters, CNN, and a lot more.

Still blocked: blogspot, livejournal, wordpress (no surprise here -- lots of political blogs), BBC, certainly more; most importantly, Sinfest and CRFH :-( (why the f* is CRFH blocked? Zombies? Satan?)

Also, the web feels slightly faster in general!

I changed my Google Reader and news clippings from Slashdot to Alterslash. Yes, it's some time behind Slashdot, but then again Slashdot is some time behind my other sources anyway... and Alterslash gives proper HTML, so you don't have to click Slashdot only to get the link to the actual useful article...

I'm not going to go back and retroactively change all old clippings, but I did that for the clippings of the last few days. Enjoy!

It goes like this...

Billy has a broken car. It's broken mostly because he doesn't know how to run it, of course; and more importantly, because it's making Billy rivers of money even though it's broken, so there's no incentive to learn to run it right.

Then Jerry drives by with an incredibly shaggy, shitty car, with a few nice accessories.

Billy immediately thinks: I'll buy Jerry's car, and use the parts to make mine less broken!

Of course, Billy still not knowing what to do with a car, it will remain broken, or best case, be fixed for a short time before he breaks it again. And it will still be hugely profitable. So to be honest, I see nothing wrong with Billy's logic.

Yeah, there's a reasonable chance it will make zero difference to Billy's car in the long run. But it will make people talk about Billy even more, which of course, puts more money on his pocket. Maybe even more than he's offering.

Yesterday I finished my new friend Stefan's book, Jame5. It's a read I recommend to pretty much anyone, but in particular intelligent people interested in the future. It deals with a concept that has been a hot topic in the last few years, the "technical singularity": an AI that's intelligent enough to improve itself.

There are a number of reasons why this concept is called a "singularity", a word borrowed from astrophysics (where it means black holes). Once it exists, it grows spontaneously, and at exponential speed. And no less importantly, we're unable to fully understand and predict what's happening in there, because all laws we know and live by are challenged.

It's the last thing humanity has to invent, because if done right, once it's there, it will invent everything else, at a pace that will seem instantaneous for us. And if done wrong, we won't be around to invent anything else.

The book is available online, on Stefan's site, and can be bought in dead tree form (links can also be found on Stefan's site). If you're in Beijing, you can also get one directly from Stefan.