The gentle singularity: what is the limit of the singularity?

The next step for artificial intelligence is the artificial general intelligence, AGI. That is the tool that connects every computer under one dome. The AGI is the self-learning system that develops its models and interconnects them with sensors that bring new data for the system. That means we can interconnect every single computer in the world in one entirety. We can think that social media is something new. We forget that a long time before Facebooks were the letter clubs. The “post offices” where people can send letters to people, who could be pseudonyms. 

Social media is not a new thing, and Facebook and other applications are the products of a long route that started in Ancient Rome and Greece where wall writing or graffiti was the beginning of social media. Social media interconnects people from around the world. The new thing that the net brought was speed and maybe the price of those systems is low. But as we know there are no free lunches. The thing that doesn’t cost anything can have the highest price. The ability to create singularity between computers brings the ability to share and receive information with new forces. 

And then the new step for AI and computers is the brain-computer interface, BCI. The BCI means the ability to control computers using the brain waves, or EEG. The system can interact with computers and it can operate also between people. This system can interconnect all animals and humans in one entirety. And there are risks and opportunities about that model. If we make things wrong we create a collective mind. There is one opinion. So we interconnect our minds and computers into giant brains. That is a very sad thing. That thing destroys our own creativity.

The biggest problem with social media, AI-based dating applications, and finally singularity is that the system destroys diversity. People want to discuss and date only people who are similar to them. That means our way of thinking starts to turn homogenous. That causes a situation where we have no people who disagree with us. We can hear only ideas and opinions that please us. We take only people who are similar to us, in our social networks. So, in the worst case, we and our networks operate like some algorithm that recycles data through the model. That means we, our team, or our network will not get anything new to our model. We just recycle something if we don’t accept diversity. 

Our mind needs ideas and motivation for making new things. And where can we get those new ideas? We can discuss those things. Or we can get information that some other party made. And then we can work and refine the information that we can get from net pages and other media. Without opponents our productivity and creativity die, because we have nobody who brings new ideas into our minds. 

In some models, the network can develop things by playing games against some other network. The network creates a simulation and then the model tries to fight against that simulation. If a model wins there is no need to develop it. But if the model loses it requires adjustment. And that means the system requires data and then it requires optimism. 

In the novel “Peace on Earth” the author Stanislaw Lem introduced a model where the simulator creates a model and the other fights against that model. The better simulation becomes a model. Until something creates a new, better model. 

There is another way to operate as a network. The network can accept individually operating members. The idea is that every operator that is connected to the network is autonomous. Those subsystems operate autonomously when they collect data. When the network doesn’t need order it can be chaotic. And when an actor sees something that requires a lot of information, the roll call comes over the network. “Everybody stop, the network needs your capacity”. That commands those autonomous subsystems to leave their work and start to solve bigger problems. 

So, the network operates as a whole when it requires that ability. The network can have subsystems and that means as in the case of an extreme crisis those subnetworks create models that should handle that problem. 

Those subsystems can be individual actors. When the individual actors play against each other, that lost actor joins with the winner and starts to develop a model that won. Then the actor couples start to play against each other, and again. The lost team joins the team that won and then starts to develop the tactics that won the game. The actor groups or networks expand when new actors join bigger entities. 

Those subsystems start to play against each other. When some subsystem loses, that means its tactics are lost. Then that lost actor joins the winner's team and gives its capacity to that team, or network. The network always drops lost tactics or action models until there are two networks against each other. And the better wins. This is one way to create the answer and solution for complicated problems. The expanding network could be the thing that brings solutions to many problems. When the network is in chaotic mode actors search data for it. 

 

Is the political field more radical than ever before?

We get more information than ever before. But we have a new ability that was impossible before the internet. We can select the information that we read. And we must not read anything that supports our opinions. This thing causes polarization in the information that we get.

If we are reading only things that please us. That thing distorts information. And we might believe that all people we see are members of some kind of street gang or are working in some kind of political movement.  

Our change to select the information that we get makes it possible that we can avoid discussions about that thing. We might see only things that support our opinions. And if somebody criticizes our opinions, we can just close that person out of our social environment. 

The political field is more polarized and radical than ever before. Or this is the thing that many of us believe. Many people saw this when Donald Trump refused to accept the result of the elections. 

And then Trump called his supporters to the streets. The media is full of stories about the problems foreigners are causing and many pictures of armed protesters attacking Congress houses in the USA. But are those things that we see only virtual effects? 

Are things like street gangs a new problem? Those things are been here a long time before us. The only information that is delivered about those things was in crime stories and crime magazines. 

But social media brought that thing in front of our eyes. The fact is that there is a new thing called social media. Social media brought things like political radicalism to common knowledge. And another thing is that the political parties are closer to each other than ever before.

So the only differences between political movements are the attitudes toward weapon-carrying and foreigners. The thing is that the political field is closer to the center than ever before.  

That means the things that brought votes for candidates in the last elections escalated over the entire political field. So the only differences in party programs are highlighted. And that thing feeds the vision of political polarization. Things like an attack on Congress are frightening, and those things seem very dramatic. And dramatic things interested people. 

The price of political campaigns is enormous. And that's why nobody can confess that they have no change. Nobody can leave the game, because the price of those campaigns is so high. So candidates must go to the end even if they see that they have no chance to win. 

When we are thinking about the American election system the candidate who wins the state gets all electors behind the winner. And that means differences in the votes are always artificial. There could be only a couple of votes that resolve the election. And that thing is one of the things, that people should understand when they talk about the American election system. 

When George W. Bush won the campaign in 2001, he won with five votes. Because the presidential campaigns are campaigns for electors there is the possibility that a person who gets fewer natural votes will be elected to president. 

The thing, that makes this possible is that. If the candidate gets more electors that candidate will be elected to president. The reason for that kind of system is that it denies that the president will not turn too strong. But when we are thinking about change. And especially with the internet and social media, we must realize that dramatic things are interesting. Professional journalists require money. 

So from the point of view of earning logic, the newspaper wants something that brings money to them. Even if we see some free newspapers or free media, we must understand that there is somebody who pays the price of that media. If that price is not collected from readers there must be some other thing that brings money to the cash of that newspaper. 

And one thing that brings money is commercials. But the problem with commercials is that people should see them and buy products. If nobody reads articles those advertisers are going to find some other platform for their marketing materials. 

And newspapers publish articles that are interesting to readers. If nobody reads the magazine it will face bankruptcy. So we might think that dramatic things are interesting things and dramatism grow sales. When virtual magazines are marketed people should always ask, "why somebody wants to buy the right to read that thing"?. 

Virtual workspaces are the thing that makes the space that publishers can use unlimited. In modern network-based publishing, the paper is not limiting the work or the writing's length.

 So virtual magazines have not limited anymore how many articles they publish. Virtual workspaces are the tool that allows writing things more freely than ever before. That means the people who are writing to the media must have more interesting stories than before. And that thing sometimes causes overstating in writing. 

https://fromplatoscavetoreality.blogspot.com/

Do economists have a too big influence on media?

We are all seen sometimes economists in the media. And that thing makes us believe that economists are very usual professionals. An economist is a person who studied economics and especially national economics. So they are very highly trained people. The question is are leaders following instructions that economists are giving? Another thing is that economy, and things like human rights and human needs are sometimes different. 

But do economists have too much influence on the national economy and the way how governments use money? When we are looking at economists in the media we are facing the thing that our nation will face bankruptcy at any minute. So the purpose of economists is to tell how we must save money for the future. And that thing means that those people have power. 

If some economists are telling that some nations will go bankrupt. That thing causes the situation that money will start to escape from those countries. This effect increases inflation. So when we are thinking about the financial sector. That thing has a great effect on the economy. The problem with all nations is that they have limited resources. And the biggest problem with economics is that everybody wants free money. 

When we look at nations like Russia, we must realize one thing. Property and useful property are two different things. Even if we have thousands of square kilometers of land area, we cannot buy anything from the shop. Or if some official authorities denied the use of our bank accounts. That means that we will do nothing with that money. Also, things like boycotts are causing problems to use money. There are billions of things that can affect the value of products. 

And if the country where products are made is facing things like sanctions. That can destroy the reputation and value of the companies that are operating in those countries. 

Also, if authorities confiscated property and investments transferred to those countries. That thing can destroy all investments that are in that country. So things like revolution, and change of leaders, especially in dictatorial country causes financial shock. There is the possibility that contracts, made in the era of the past leader not continue similarly in the time of the next leader. Even if the next government continues mainly the same line, there are always small differences in the ways how government works with the private sector. 

But when we think about the power of economists, we must realize that those people are very trusted. People who decide where they will invest a couple of billion euros are listening to the advice of economists. Most of them are working with large-size financial corporations. And if those people would give information that some nation is going to unstable or some financial problems can cause that large financial operator will start to pull money away from that country. 

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12664312

https://brandproductandmarketing.blogspot.com/

When meaningless turns to remarkable

We all see things that mean nothing. If we will not react to that thing. One of the examples is the snowman. Children made that for fun. That is a so-called childish thing. 

Nobody should care about that kind of snowman. That is far away from the road. But if somebody breaks that snowman that action means that the snowman means something to that person. 

And it should not disturb anybody. But when somebody kicks the snowman that thing turns remarkable. Why that person breaks the snow statue what should not mean anything? Somebody might ask the reason for the kick. If an adult person breaks snowman. That thing means something to that person. 

The thing is that if some person causes the massive wave of trolls on the Internet. That person means something to somebody. One of the worst mistakes in social behavior is to offer money. Offering money means that there is something that means to the person who is making an offer. 

Money or great publicity means that somebody has something important to connect to those things. The publicity and very good offers are the things. That is one of the best ways to make something interesting in the researcher's eyes. 

In the cases that, some organizations offer gift cards for a member. Who brings new customers or members that thing brings a certain type of things about that organization. The thing that it might show is the desperate need to get new members or customers. 

If somebody is starting to bully some other person on the internet that means there is something important in that person who is the target for trollers. Does somebody know too much about things that wanted to be away from publicity? Why do some people want to smoke other people out of their school? This kind of thing can cause the reputation of a cheater to be gone. 

But if we think that person comes to the school. And isolation starts in the first minute. That thing is remarkable. 

Nobody starts to hate others in one minute. So there is somebody who shows the person who should stay away from the nucleus of the gang. And what might be the reason for that? When we are thinking that the other people are following that isolator we might ask, what is the gift for that thing? Is there some kind of price for the isolation? What is the reason why somebody offers a price for keeping some person out of the gang?

Is there some kind of doping training for sportsmen? Or does somebody hunt for endangered animals? Or did somebody just flow the motor oil of some museum car to the rivers? Or is the reason for bullying that some famous rock musician has stolen the bites from other musicians? The thing that somebody is bullying others or offers money for putting somebody silent means that there is something to hide. 

In mafia cases, murder is the thing that turns theories real. That means that the violence causes authorities to start to be interested in some kind of business. When somebody has murdered the question that can uncover suspects to investigators is a reason why somebody made murder? When people are investigating crimes they should ask why somebody made the crime?

The question of the reason for the crime. Is the same way important as the question of who made the case? If we think of the most famous or the most mysterious vanishing cases. We should ask, what makes those cases so mysterious? When we are thinking about the list that is published in Finnish media we can ask what made those cases so remarkable? 

If somebody sits in the rowboat in the middle of the Pacific and tries to travel from Hong Kong to San Francisco less probable is that the person would arrive in San Francisco than vanishing in the middle of the Pacific. So is the reason for selection that the person made that mad attempt? 

Another thing is the vanish of Heinrich "Gestapo-Müller" Müller. He was the chief of Nazi Germany's secret police Gestapo. There is the possibility that this man moved to South America, but he could move as well to Sweden. Or maybe that man exploded to atoms in the Soviet or Western Allied bombardments and cannon fire at the end of the war. Why that theory has ever been noticed? There is the possibility that some vanished war criminals got direct hit by Soviet shells during the Battle of Berlin. The link for that article is here: (Article is in Finnish)Historian mystisimmät ja mielenkiintoisimmat katoamistapaukset (msn.com) There is also a link to that article below this text. 

 One of the cases where double-murder turns legend alive is the case where two reporters were killed when they investigated nazi gold. Before those murders, the stories of the nazi gold that sunken in lakes were only theories. But when those reporters were found dead the theory turns to a criminal investigation. 

Even in the most extreme cases. When somebody physically hurts or kills another person. There is always some kind of reason for that action. The punishments for that kind of action are very hard. There is always something that makes the person with violent nature select victims. But why did that person take the risk? What is the thing that causes the need to take violent actions against other people? If the police catch that kind of person. That thing means very long imprisonment. 

https://www.msn.com/fi-fi/uutiset/other/historian-mystisimm%C3%A4t-ja-mielenkiintoisimmat-katoamistapaukset/ss-AAT73KX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531#image=24

How to map the social connection of some person?

https://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Do you know that Putin is three clicks away from you at the social media? This thing is investigated by some university, and that conclusion bases the claiming, that every person on earth would be two or three person thread from everybody, who uses social media. This thing makes us think, that in almost every person's social media network is some kind of intelligence officer.

Those officials serving for intelligence or police, and those persons mission is to find out drug dealers and other people, who are making criminal activities. The data, what is connected is problematic because it will uncover the real interests, what the users of the social media have. And the thing is, that connecting the information, what is collected from different sources can be used to make a very good profile of the targeted person.

And don't think, that if you have to pay for some solution makes it safe. Many of the solutions are free for private users, and that helps to control the sources, what are used to collecting information. Because firms must pay for the solution, that would allow filtering that kind of users away from the tracking lists. This means that intelligence services can target the tracking to private users or firms if the firmware solution is used for illegal activities.

There are many ways to investigate the social connections in social media, and one of them is to send the circular letter to that person and ask to deliver that message to all the social connections. The best way to make this thing working perfectly is to use some texts, what are very sensitive or makes need to show empathy. This is the best way to make people deliver those texts to other persons. This makes the social media very interesting place. And if someone would not want to deliver those circular letters, that will make this person sadistic and cold person in the eyes of other users of the social media.

So this is the short and sad story about the way, to find out the persons, who are members of some community. There is nothing wrong about the circular letters and some kind of stuff. But there is one very disturbing thing. They are always so sensitive, that they are going to disturb me, and the things, that some person would die in cancer are very sad. Sometimes there are asked money by using that kind of pictures and stories. And at the same time, they are causing negative for the people, who really need help, and here I'm writing about cases, where that kind of letters are shared because somebody wants to map the social connections. Those methods are strictly against the ethics and moral of the scientific work. And they are causing problems for people, who are in real trouble.

Tapaus Nokiasta taas vaihteeksi

https://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Tässä taas illan ratoksi ajattelin pohtia hiukan Nokiaa, ja sitä miten taloutemme veturi ajettiin amerikkalaisten käsiin. Koko tapausta katsellessa pitää huomioida sellainen asia, että miksi Nokian hallintoneuvosto ei puuttunut Elopin toimintaan, ja sitä kautta yhtiön pörssiarvo putosi erittäin alas. Samoin tuolloin Nokian johto päätti, että se antaa ikään kuin signaalin pörssille, että Nokian suhteen ei mitään ole tehtävissä, ja tuo signaali oli sellainen, että yhtiö paikkasi tulostaan sillä, että sen johto myi kiinteistöjään sekä patenttejaan ulkopuolisille toimijoille, jotka sitten pääsivät hyötymään tuon yhtiön tuotekehityksestä. Kun ajatellaan tilannetta, missä esimerkiksi jatkuvilla lausunnoilla ensi vuonna tulevista paremmista puhelimista, niin silloin tietenkin on asia, joka yhtiön johdon pitäisi tehdä.


Eli tuollaisten puheiden avulla ei ainakaan asiakkaita yhtiön tuotteille saada, ja jos sitten halutaan tehdä sellaisia toimenpiteitä, että yhtiön asiakkaat vaihtavat puhelimensa toisiin merkkeihin, niin siitä sitten kannattaa myös muistuttaa jokaisen puhelimen olevan oikeastaan vain välimalli, ja sitten tuoda markkinoille puhelimia, joihin ei ehkä ole olemassa mitään sovelluksia. Tietenkin tässä tapauksessa ihmiset eivät ehkä tuollaista “puhumiseen tarkoitettua mallia” aivan kovin mielellään lähde ostamaan. Mutta kun Elop kerran oli saatu palkattua, niin silloin häntä täytyi koko ajan tukea. Se mikä yhtiön johtajilta on välillä unohtunut on se, että tietenkin johtaminen on hauskaa, mutta kuitenkin yhtiön johtajilla on vastuu työstään.


Jos joku yhtiössä tekee asioita väärin, niin silloin tietenkin on hänet erotettava. Nokian kohdalla voisi joku petoksia tutkivan ryhmän poliisi kysyä, että “miten näin huono sopimus on mennyt läpi?”. Ja miten jatkuvasti väärin tehty tiedotus ei ole aiheuttanut mitään reaktioita yhtiön johdossa, joka oli vakaasti päättänyt hankkia seuraavan johtajan Nokian pahimman kilpailijan eli Microsoftin riveistä, eikä kukaan edes ajatellut sitä, että hän saattaisi ajaa yhtiön Microsoftin syliin. Kun ajatellaan sitä, että yhtiö järjestelmällisesti ikään kuin alas ajettiin, niin silloin tietenkin pitää huomioida se, että Nokian osakkeet ikään kuin annettiin ilmaiseksi sen pahimmalle kilpailijalle, ja siitä tuli osakkeenomistajille tappioita melko paljon.


Tällainen teko aiheuttaa varmasti katkeruutta, ja jos voidaan todistaa, että Nokian johto olisi neuvotellut Microsoftin johtajien kanssa mahdollisista uusista työpaikoista, niin silloin voidaan juttu heitä vastaan aloittaa. Juristien tehtävänä on puolustaa päämiehensä etua, ja jos esimerkiksi voidaan jokun sähköpostin tai tapaamista esittävien valokuvien kautta esittää, että jotain on salattu, niin silloin voidaan tapausta lähteä selvittämään oikeudessa tai jopa poliisin tutkimukset voidaan käynnistää, jos voidaan todistaa kyseessä olleen yhtiön tahallinen alasajo, jotta siitä ei tarvitse maksaa mitään.


Se mikä muuten tapaus “Nokiassa” hiukan ihmetyttää liittyen yhtiön aikaisempiin toimiin on sen muutos yhdestä maailman innovatiivisimmista yhtiöstä ikään kuin sellaiseksi työpaikaksi, että sitä ikään kuin jotenkin arvostettiin hyvin vähän, vaikka kyseessä oli sentään talouden veturi. Oli muka jotenkin alentavaa olla insinööri, joka kehittää puhelimia, ja sitten muutenkin Nokia alkoi jotenkin oireilla sillä tavoin, että yhtiössä olisi pitänyt tehdä jotain ilmapiirin parantamiseksi.


Yhtiön kasvaessa siihen tuli tietenkin kaiken maailman keskijohtoa, ja sitten sen innovaatio alkoi hiipua, mikä näkyi kaikessa sen tuotannossa. IT-ala on yksi maailman innovatiivisimmista sekä nopeimmin muuttuvista toimialoista, jossa ei yksinkertaisesti voi jäädä makaamaan paikoilleen. Tämän asian ovat monet yhtiöt sekä niiden johtajat saaneet kokea. Eli kun yhtiö on saanut loistavan tuotteen markkinoille, niin seuraavassa kuussa tuo tuote ei sitten enää edes kelpaa ilmaislataukeksi.


Ja maksullisten pelien kohdalla taas ongelma on siinä, että lataaja on alaikäinen, joten sen takia näiden ohjelmien lataamista pitää aina valvoa. Lapsille kohdennettu markkinointi on aina todella vaativaa työtä, koska siinä pitää muistaa aina lapsen oikeudet, sekä se, että aikuisten pitää aina valvoa noita latauksia, ja vanhemmilla pitää aina olla oikeus estää maksullisten ohjelmien tai palveluiden lataaminen puhelimeen sekä perua lapsensa hankkima palvelu, jos se on vahingollista tai aiheuttaa kuluja liittymän haltijalle.


Kun puhutaan esimerkiksi kännykkään tarkoitetuista peleistä, niin tietenkin niiden kohderyhmä ovat lapset sekä nuoret, joten noita pelejä kannattaisi tehdä niin, että ne ovat optimoituja hiukan vanhemmille laitteille, mutta niiden markkinointi sitten on vaikeaa. Eli kukaan ei halua, että lapset laittavat puhelimiinsa netistä tuhansien eurojen edestä maksullisia ohjelmia, ja siksi lapsille tehty markkinointi on hieman arveluttavaa, eikä myöskään ole asiallista kaupata näitä tuotteita ihmiselle, joka ei käsitä tuotteen voivan aiheuttaa heille lisäkustannuksia


Kuitenkin kun ajatellaan Nokiaa yhtiönä, niin sen eteen tehtiin kaikki mahdollinen valtion puolesta. Eli säädettiin niin sanottu “Lex Nokia”, jonka toivottiin suojaavan Nokian patentteja sekä tuotekehitystä. Mutta kuitenkin kävi aivan toisin. Nimittäin jos esimerkiksi yhtiön työntekijä ei saa rahallista hyötyä kehittämästään innovaatiosta, niin silloin tuo ei kyllä paljoa innosta siihen, että kukaan omia ajatuksiaan mihinkään palaveriin tuo. Samoin yhtiöllä alkoi olla huono maine esimerkiksi sen kautta, että sen logon kehittäjää ei kuulemma ole mitenkään palkittu tuosta teostaan. Myös Nokian johtokunnan suhtautuminen Elopin edeltäjään Kallasvuohon oli omituista.


Se että hän ei saanut edes yrittää varmaan sai aikaan Nokian osakkeen heilumista. Nokian johtajan asemassa olevan miehen luulisi saavan hiukan tukea johtokunnasta, mutta kuitenkin jostain syystä hän ei tuota tukea saanut, ja esimerkiksi toisarvoiset seikat saivat kohtuuttoman paljon huomiota. Ja sitten tuo johtokunta päätyi Elopiin, joka ajoi sitten tuon yhtiön alas noiden johtokunnan jäsenten mitenkään puuttumatta tilanteeseen. Mutta se varmaan kuului jotenkin maamme yritysten kulttuuriin ja infrastruktuuriin, että oletetaan automaattisesti kaikkien antavan toisia mahdollisuuksia, jos sattuu sitten joku tekemään virheitä. Sitten kävi niin, että tällä kertaa ei toista mahdollisuutta tullut, ja virheitä ei saatu tekemättömäksi. Johtokunnan pitää puuttua sellaiseen toimintaan, mikä vahingoittaa yhtiön toimintaa sekä mainetta. Mikäli johtokunta ei toimintaan puutu, niin silloin sen jäsenet saattavat joutua jopa vankilaan, jos katsotaan heidän ajaneen tällaisessa tapauksessa omaa etuaan eli ottaneen lahjuksia kilpailijalta tai estäneen osakkaita saamasta oleellista tietoa yhtiön tilasta.


Joten se antoi tuolloin signaalin, että Nokialla ei kannata mitään ryhtyä kehittämään, koska mitään korvausta ei siitä ole luvassa. Tuon asian takia sitten lähdettiin ajamaan sitä linjaa, että yhtiön johto saa tehdä mitä hyvänsä, eikä se muille kuulu. Kuitenkin jos tuota asennetta ajatellaan siltä kannalta, että yhtiön johto saattaa toimia väärin, niin silloin tietenkin tuo tilanne saattaa johtaa erittäin suuriin vahinkoihin. Jos taas mietitään sitä, että jos Elop olisi ollut vaikkapa “Microsoftin agentti”, niin silloin hän olisi varmasti toiminut juuri näin. “Agent provocateur” tarkoittaa provokaattoria tai propaganda-agenttia, jonka tehtävänä on tuottaa aineistoa, jolla jotain tahoa mustamaalataan.


Tämä toimija ei välttämättä ole valtion palveluksessa, vaan myös yksityiset yhtiöt voivat tuollaisen henkilön palkata palvelukseensa. Hän saattaa olla mainosmies, joka tekee huonoja tai tuotetta mustamaalaavia mainoksia, joissa korostetaan esimerkiksi sitä, että yhtiö ei riko koskaan lakia, mutta valmistaa kaikki tuotteensa Bangladeshissa, missä ei ilmeisesti ole kovin paksua lakikirjaa. Ja jos vaikka ympäristölainsäädäntöä ei ole olemassakaan, niin silloin lakia on hiukan vaikeaa rikkoa. Tuolloin toki myrkyt saattavat joutua myös suomalaisen ruokailijan lautaselle, jos vaikka kalapuikot on valmistettu Bangladeshin edustalta pyydetystä kalasta.


Toinen tapa on korostaa sitä, että joku yhtiö ei palkkaa ollenkaan sen maan kansalaisia, jotka ovat kotoisin yhtiön kotimaasta. Nokia ei ainakaan mitenkään erityisen positiivisesti ollut suhtautunut esimerkiksi korkeakouluopiskelijoiden työharjoitteluihin, ja tietenkin työharjoittelua tai muuta työtä haettaessa olivat kaikki kaavakkeet englanniksi. Se että yhtiö joka väitti itseään suomalaiseksi ikään kuin häpesi suomalaisuuttaan ei ollut kenestäkään hyvä merkki. Ikään kuin maamme olisi ollut sellainen, että täällä ei voisi elää, koska me puhumme jotain vähän erilaista kieltä kuin muut kansat. Ja samaan aikaan media alkoi sitten kehittää kuitenkin “Fixit”-ohjelmaa, eli sitä kuinka maamme seuraa Britannian perässä pois EU:sta,


Mutta kuitenkin tuolloin unohdetaan, että “Fixit” olisi varmasti mahdollinen, jos maamme sattuisi sijaitsemaan  Britannian kohdalla maailman kartalla, mutta jostain syystä en usko että britit vaihtavat Suomalaisten kanssa maata. Nimittäin se että maamme talous perustui ennen transit-liikenteeseen, sekä siihen, että meillä oli hyvät suhteet Venäjään sekä länteen ei toimi enää. Tai tämä asia voidaan sanoa toisin. “Miksi kukaan ajaa Suomen kautta viemään tavaraa Venäjälle?”. Britannia saa sitä vastoin tuloja siitä, että laivat tuovat tavaraa Skotlannin sekä valtion muiden satamien kautta EU:n markkinoille, joten sen takia biteillä on niin paljon paremmat taloudelliset edellytykset erota EU:sta kuin Suomella.

Eikä myöskään esimerkiksi henkilövalintojen joukossa ollut enää yhtään suomalaista nimeä, vaan kaikki pomot olivat jotain ulkomaalaisia. Joten tietenkin yhtiö tällä osoitti, että se ei enää Suomessa aikonut pysyä, vaan lehdistössä spekuloitiin sen muuttavan jonnekin muuhun maahan. Joten silloin tietenkin pitää muistaa, että ne verorahat mitä yhtiö on tuonut olisivat kuitenkin menneet jonkun toisen valtion kassaan. Ja maassamme tietenkin oli tapana uskoa mediaa, joka jatkuvasti ikään kuin ajoi maamme talouden veturia ulos maasta. Samoin maamme lehdistö uskoi varmaan loppuun asti siihen, että Nokia osakkeet vain annetaan sen osakkaille takaisin. Sitä ei kuitenkaan tapahtunut, eikä kauppaa sitten purettu, vaikka sitä mediassa toivottiin.

It's not just about the social media, it's about the limits of the speech

Statue of Johannes Gutenberg at Strasbourg
(Picture I)  

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/its-not-just-about-social-media-its.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

In the trial against MV-lehti and Ilya Janitskyn, is the question about the right to write about thigs, what would be not tolerated in the old fashion media, and at the same time the court is metering the limits of the writings in social media. And at the same time would somebody looking for the decision about the writer of social media right to use the name "magazine" in their homepages.  But also we are facing the problem of the journalism, what is the very complicated thing.


Normally freedom of speech is meaning, that every person has right to make that kind of writings what he or she wants, but there would be no answer, what to do when if the opinion of the writer is against the opinion of the line of the magazine. And it is problematic because the journalist is in the similar relationship for the employer as the normal worker. So if the employer wants, the content of the text should follow the line of the magazine or media house.


But is the case, where the head journalist wants that the henchman changes the content against freedom of speech? And what to do, if some journalist would make the publications same time in the magazines like MV-lehti, what are actually the social media channels? Here we must also ask another question about the publications like MV-lehti, and that is very complicated: should that channel mention, that there is a "Facebook-style" channel, and would the persons, who own that channel also have the responsibility to moderate the writings, what are published in that media.


And what to do, if some journalist would write to those social media- magazines in their free time.  That means that nothing limits the journalists work when that person is not in the office. The big question is,  would that cause the divorcing if those writings are against the line of the workplace? Those are difficult questions, and there would not be right answers for this kind of things.

Picture I

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Statue_of_Johannes_Gutenberg_on_Place_Gutenberg%2C_Strasbourg.jpg

Miksi Ilja Janitskin on niin suuri ongelma?

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html
http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html
http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html
http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html
http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html
http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html
http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html
http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/2018/06/miksi-ilja-janitskin-on-niin-suuri.html

Have a nice day Dr. Venkman

http://metsantarinoita.blogspot.com/p/have-nice-day-dr-venkman.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When we are thinking about the movie "Ghostbusters" and the one of the last chapter, where the demon is waiting that somebody says, what kind of character it should take, we might think that thing is impossible. But as we know, the characters, are actually different demons, and the thing, what would somebody say, is actually an order, that certain demon must come to the Earth, and this would transfer straight to Mafia.

In this texts might be some very strange forms of the used worlds, because tautophony is prohibited in the grammatical regulations. That's why I must choose the worlds what do not begin with the same letter. But let's go back to the mafia-men office and hire that man, who would do our dirty work for us, and when the hitman would be hired, the mafia-boss just ask, what kind of "service" would that hitman give. And then the service would be the character, and if the client wants the service as the accidental burn in the competitor's office, would that person show only the child' playing card, where is the character fireman. And then the competitor's office would be burn.

When we are thinking about the situation, where Dr. Venkman and the fellows were in that comedy, they should understand that demon or an alien would ever be on  the Earth, and that's why the most horrifying thing, what that demon might know would be that candy because those things kill more people than anything else in the world. In our world, the sugars and grease kill more people than anything else. And that might be on the list of that demon offerer because that person would read on the list of common causes of the death. Today one of the TV-chefs have died, and that was, of course, be a notable thing in the media. 

That person was very loved, and the next writing is not about this person, I hope. This case or writing in the media was brought some very bad thoughts in my mind. Normally we think, that some people are really warm and shiny person because they like our parents or family members. But sometimes I have met the persons, who are very nice and warm persons in the front of the people, but in the back office,  they are tyrants, what are under the estimation limit. 

They might just yell to henchmen that if the job is not done well, they would kick them off immediately because there are many persons behind the door. When we are thinking of that candy, what destroys all city, we must say, that this is one of the greatest fears in the mind of some people. That demon is that those persons are called always as the "fat". They would have the candies, with them, and everybody calls them losers. 

But there is one paradox with those "losers". We are all asked, why those nerds are so big authority in the working life? When we are thinking about the case, where somebody will attend to some job like fireman, police or some other that kind of job, the main role of the selection process would be medical doctors and other persons, who were graduated in the university. Those persons would always be mentioned as the unsuitable for the missions of that organization, and that's fine.

 But why those academical persons have the key role in the selection process, if there were not a single good word about them. And the most hated situation comes, when somebody, who works in public career and seems to be a very nice person would be a total asshole in the back. And sometimes that would be very hard to say because that kind of people can act very nice way. And nobody believes, what happens, where no other person would be seen. 

How to become popular in politics?

The Parliament of Finland
(Picture I)

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/p/how-to-become-popular-in-politics.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Many people might think, that this is the re-take of another text, what I wrote yesterday, but the reason, why somebody becomes popular in the political field is the very good question, and that's why I write it here. First, the person, who wants to be popular, must make speeches about the things, what people want to hear. And sometimes that is far away from realistic opportunities, what the state can give to the voters. There are always limits, what the state can pay because the national economy would and property of the state give limits, for what the government can buy, and what kind of taxes it must take from people. If there would be big payments, must the state increase level of taxes to fix the budgets.

Also, friends in the press and media would help the politician to get the opinions known to the large group of people. So politicians must make good influence about themselves for media, that the reporters would say good worlds for their program. And praise the opportunities, what the politician would give to the field of politics. This is the very good idea to become popular in every field, and of course, the good way to see, what makes people interested and like about the politician, is use decibel meter, and meter the time of the applause after speaking.

The feeling at the front of the speaker is the very good meter for the political leader or person who wants to become the political leader, that people want to hear the speeches of that person. And one of the worst mistakes is made in this field because if somebody offers something from some organization, should this person also mention, own position in that system.


Uniformed organizations are of course the very good field when something wants to promise, but there is one little problem with them. There is so little number of police officers and professional military men in the western democracies, that their votes would not raise any person in the position of prime minister. But those kinds of groups are the good field to give permissions because they seem like big and homogeneous groups. But the problem is those people afraid uniforms, and if the politician promises very much for those actors, would that cause that normal people would not give votes to that politician, what seems like some totalitarian.


And this is one reason, why the Second World War veterans got so much positive publicity, and many permissions were given straight to them. They were the big group of people, who have the same background. And if those big groups of people like some political movement or party, that brings votes for politicians. This is the mathematics of democracy. If somebody wants to get the workplace in the parliament, this person must get popularity from the people, that have only one vote to give. And only the vote, what is dropped in the box means in the election. The politicians want to please the major part of the electors, and if they want votes for new political movement, they must promise something different than old-school political leaders. And of course, they must get publicity.


That's why every political movement is very radical when it begins the work. Radicalism brings votes, and then they would get the place in the cabinets. And new political movements can always blame old actors, that all mistakes are made by them. One thing what would bring support from media is mention that some political movement has the biggest group of members in the political field. This might be sound good, but then we must ask one question: how many members are found in the party? And at the same time ask, clear answer to the question, by using numbers. In the field of politics is a good thing to find supporters from the media, because that brings free space for political advertising.


Same time, we might ask how many members are in the average party, what acts in the country, where lives five million people, and in the parliament is ten parties. There are 17 registered parties in Finland, and this makes me ask, how many members really is in those parties. But the being biggest party in the political field is the very notable thing, and it would bring more positive writings in media because big parties can get more sure places from parliaments than small parties. The membership of big party would bring more personal good for the active member, who is the good speaker than membership in the small party.


But same way we must say, that in the big party is found many opinions and the one permission is not enough, because the votes must be collected from the larger field. And that's why there must make investigations of average persons in the voting area, and make some permissions to them, and then some permissions, what are targeted in some precisely selected areas. If there would be many families with children, they might want some services for children, and if there would be the active military reserve, would they be interested in military funding for armed forces. Those examples are very far away from together, and that's why I put them here.


They are the perfect thing for compilation, what kind of permissions must politician give in the career. And that shows, how difficult is to be the politician. Without permission is no votes, and if the permissions go for wrong persons, who don't live in the voting area, would that cause the catastrophe. That means the end of the political career if the person is the first time in the election campaign. And if the result is the flop, would the supporters go to find another politician, whose campaign they want to sponsor.

Sources:

http://vaalit.fi/fi/rekisteroidyt-puolueet

https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/kansanedustajat/eduskuntaryhmat/eduskuntaryhmarekisteri/Sivut/default.aspx


Picture I

https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/c4/bc/58/shutterstock-150288245.jpg

Stop the rumors but keep the open and innovative atmosphere in the workplace

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.com.ee/p/stop-rumors-but-keep-open-and.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

This might be a good slogan in some workplaces. Working life is very difficult, even without persons who come to some meetings and tell that "There were some investigations about this thing in UCLA", and after that, this person gives us a very great smile, that this investigation was the thing, what is synonyms for our decision. When we are asking about those investigations, the results would be publishing after two weeks, but this person has heard rumors of those results have been told by some reporter, from some kind of "Rolling Stone" magazine, who have heard them in some cafeteria near the University of Helsinki.


This feels the very confessing thing, and that is the reason, why we must spend 30 minutes of our working day. Press is very good thing to get information, but if somebody wants to say, that in the press is written something, could this person bring that magazine with him or her to the meeting, that rest of us would see what is written in that article, what is written by some very popular and well-known person, who has been written to many publications, what are delivered to many top specialists of the world. Working life is the amazing thing if somebody is the very social person.


But the discussions about trends are the little bit disturbing if somebody in the same room makes the difficult code for some computer program. Also when we are talking about trends, we have the little bit difficult to find so-called trend work in the real life workplaces. Ordinary working life is far away from the "work" what is introduced in some TV-series. The picture what is given in those "soap operas" is that in the workplace is feeling like in champagne parties, and there would ever be any real jobs to do.
Then those persons would have unlimited money to spend in some restaurants, where they have always date-mates, who drive with nice sports cars. In real working life, we don't transfer to our home under one second. And in the real life, we are sometimes tired or angry. We are not social all the time, and we are sometimes making mistakes while we are talking to other persons. Sometimes the customers would come to visit in those stores, where workers normally talk together and are very social.


This world of soap operas would be very nice, but those persons live only in those TV-series. In real life, we are only humans, and we are making mistakes all the time. And we would not shine non-stop and sometimes some customer would come to disturb our shining input workplace. This is sad but true in modern life. That is far away from things, what we will see in modern media. Even in the time of digitization, the press is the very important source for information, but when somebody uses that information in the meetings and conferences, should the same information deliver to every person, who takes part of the meeting.


This helps to make conclusions about the information, what is delivering in those meetings, where is sometimes the question of millions of Euros. And in those cases should information, what is delivered in those meetings be absolute true, and the quality of the source must able to check, because if the information what is given is wrong, would the damages be very big, and the reputation of the company could be gone, if the investment would be wrong. And that is the key element for successful business. And only successful business increase the value of the corporation.


But we must understand that one part of the successful business is that business is moral and ethical action. It would be very embarrassing to catch about the use of child workers or pollution, and that would make very bad damage for the corporation, even if the action would be legal. And this would make the very strong negative influence for the production of the company. In those cases would not be the very good act to say that all working of the company is legal, because if that country has no legislation about those things, would every kind of actions in this sector be legal. And if there would be no laws about some things like corruption, those laws are very difficult to break.


With corruption, everybody should be very careful because that would bring the person near to corrupted officials, and that be very dangerous for health. Those persons who are corrupted could be very violent, because that can bring them very long period in jail, and that's why they can make even murders. In some nations is behavior, that sometimes some polices or other officials would be arrested for corruption. In those countries, the corruption is the very common problem, and that's why those governments sometimes give some officials to the lions, as we must say. That makes them seem active in the field of anti-corruption.


And of course, own citizens are satisfied in that time when a couple of sergeants of the police would send to jail because of corruption. In those nations, almost every official take profits in their position. This is the sad thing in the modern world, where everybody should live free, and people should trust their governments. But there are still countries, where people scare about law enforcement, and that makes the drug dealing and using the land area easy to use in the training of terrorism. And those problems caused bad things even in the streets of Finland or some other European country.

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.com.ee/p/stop-rumors-but-keep-open-and.html

A relationship between social and printed media

Kimmo Huosionmaa


When we are talking about trusted media, we must say that of course printed newspapers are very high ranking and professional way to make media, but in some cases that thing have been caused even genocides. The problem is that some dictators are used printed newspaper against their political oppositions. In those cases, the "faked news" are caused the persecutions and violence against persons, who have talked against the dictators. This is one way to say, that many times dangerous is use trusted media for getting power in the state. I mean here, that also printed media can be used as developing the faked news and lies for people.


And this kind of misuse of media is always very dangerous because people are always trusted the media. But when we are thinking about social media, what is very unreliable, we must see one thing. When we are walking on the street, we don't have to look Facebook all the time. And we can remove that application from the telephones. That means we can just watch that thing couple of times per day. And the problem with social media is of course that if the people would use that thing, they might uncover very big secrets, or what do you think that somebody would publish the images from the house, where is guns on the wall. That kind of things is very bad for public safety.


But when we are thinking the role of social media, we must not stare that all the time, and when we are talking about the use of social media, those applications are meant to use together. So the all writings should be published in WordPress or Blogger, and then the links can be shared on Facebook etc. If we are thinking about working day and social media, we must say that the time for social media can leave outside the working day, if that feels disturbing. But the use of social media sometimes uncovers the little secrets, like that some worker, who is claimed to be an engineer has no training or education at all.


This might cause the little bit embarrassing situation if some team leader has been played an engineer, and then the dirty secret would be uncovered. In that case, somebody might want to ask, "why that person has not done anything".  And of course, if somebody writes bullshit or prosecutes somebody without evidence, can this person take to court. This is one very complicated question of social media. Superiority has right to deny the use of social media in working time, but if there find the things that are illegal, that would make possible to prosecute this person in the courtroom.


Nobody wants to be the asshole in the eyes of the family, and that would be a reason why some directors are wanted to deny the use of social media. But sometimes the reason for denying the social media is more complicated. There are cases that some other reasons were behind the blocking the social media, and one of them is, that worker keeps sick leave, but then there would be the picture, where this person sits on the terrace and drinks beer. That would be little embarrassing thing.

http://kirjabloggaus.blogspot.fi/p/about-relationship-about-social-and.html

"Elitism" and "elite" are very new worlds in media

https://vapaaverkkojulkaiseminen.blogspot.fi/p/elitism-and-elite-are-very-new-worlds.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

In modern media have come new worlds, what are "elite" and "elitist". This means that political rulers are not the ordinary men or women. They are the new way to speak in public media and that is the very good advantage for talking about political leadership. The connection between political leadership and economic power is the very well known thing. Politicians need money for their election campaigns and money is collected from businessmen, who have very much extra money for giving to the politicians, who are supporting their interests.


And this is one reason, why people are concerning about situation in Syria. That country has very much natural resources like oil and gas, and if that nation would start to dump those merchandise to the markets, would that cause the prize of those energy sources collapse. But if the Syria and Israel would make the peace, would that cause the very problematic situation, because in this case, would oil and gas transfer to Europe thru Israel. And this is the situation, what would take money from the pockets of some other countries.


Poor people would get poorer and rich people would get more money, is the thing in modern policy. And that is the same situation from West to East. There would be only one rule in the modern economy. Making money for the stakeholders is the only rule, that must be followed. The problem with democracy is that people would see, what they want. And sometimes I would ask is there any real democracy existed in the world. The new version of democracy is information democracy, what gives only the information, what serves it's leaders purposes.

The information is the weapon, and the question is, how the informer shows the things. When we are talking about nuclear weapons, we would face two ways to show the capacity of the nuclear arsenal. One is to show how many nuclear warheads some nation is, and the second way is to use the size of all nuclear material as megatons. In a first way, some nation says, that it has 200 pieces of 500 kiloton nuclear warheads. That would mean that some nation has 100 megatons nuclear arsenal. Another state would claim, that it has only 10 warheads, what have the capacity of 20 megatons.

That state would have 200 megatons nuclear capacity, but it would like to show that, it would have 10 warheads, what are of course meant for self-defense. In this case, the number of warheads would make that state look better than the size of explosives. Also, many bloodiest dictators have the very good way to show how brutal way, what the air strikes against the targets in their countries would be. In those news bulletins are very much bodies of children, and the purpose of those things would cause problems between attackers. Also the pictures of dead civilians are good way to make people look away from that governments crimes.


In those states, the reporters would know what they see, and in Germany during World War II was concentration camps deliver bodies to the pictures of propaganda. Those pictures were meant for evidence of brutal mass bombing. The bodies of children are the good method to make people forget the extortion and disappearing members of political resistance of the state. The numbers are the very good way to influence people opinions. There are many states, what would have extremely low taxes. Those states are very proud about this thing, that they have only 10% of taxes, but they forget to say, that they don't have public healthcare and also the school system must pay by the pockets of parents.


Every person in those states must pay every service from their own pockets. Also, there are some nations, what are proud of their free education system. They have free universities, but there is the only a couple of things forgotten. Their students must pay their own apartments, food, and books from their own pocket. And the financial support of education is about 465 euros per month. And also in schools, the food is paid by students own pocket. This would guarantee that students are done their studies in extreme fast timeline. The way to show facts influences the meaning of the news.

https://vapaaverkkojulkaiseminen.blogspot.fi/p/elitism-and-elite-are-very-new-worlds.html

Miksi jotkut opiskelijat joutuvat osallistumaan toimintaan, mikä sotii heidän vakaumustaan vastaan? (Jotta he tuntevat miltä tuntuu toimia omaa tahtoaan tai identiteettiään vastaan)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1832640333433715&id=881002288597529

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Yllä on artikkeli, missä kysytään, miksi sukupuolen tutkimuksen opiskelijat joutuivat osallistumaan mielenosoitukseen mahdollisesti vastoin tahtoaan? Syy tähän lienee se, että sukupuoli-identiteetti on melko arka asia, josta tuskin vielä nykyäänkään uskalletaan keskustella vapautuneesti. Tähän mielenosoitukseen pakolaisten palauttamista vastaan oli siis osallistuttava ilman, että opiskelijan tahtoa kysyttiin. 

Syy tähän lienee se, että kurssin vastuu-opettajat halusivat, että heidän opiskelijansa joutuivat tekemään sellaista asiaa julkisesti, mikä ei ollut välttämättä heidän vakaumuksensa mukaista. Tämä mahdollisesti oman henkilökohtaisen vakaumuksen vastainen toiminta on hieman samanlaista, kuin tilanne missä henkilö joutuu toimimaan ehkä julkisesti oman seksuaalisen tai sukupuolisen identiteettinsä vastaisesti. Sukupuolen tutkija joutuu toimimaan hyvin aran asian kanssa, ja siksi on hyvä, että he joskus joutuvat käymään vähän sellaistakin läpi, mikä ei ole heidän oman vakaumuksensa mukaista tai muuten heistä itsestään kiusallista. On ikävää, kun jotkut näkevät erityisesti sukupuolivähemmistöt kohteina, joille on kiva käydä soittamassa poskea ja näyttämässä kuinka kovia sitten osataan olla. Eli ehkä tämän takia ei opiskelijoiden tahtoa kysytty, kun he lähtivät osoittamaan mieltä.

Sukupuoli-asioista voidaan keskustella muuten ilman sen suurempia raivokohtauksia tai väkivallalla uhkaamista, joten varmaan tällainen asia sitten on herättänyt huomiota. Kun jostain seksuaalisesta vähemmistöstä kirjoitetaan tai puhutaan, niin joskus aina olen huomannut sen, että jos joku on vähän toista mieltä, kuin valta-virtaa seuraavat ihmiset, niin silloin on edessä tekstejä, joissa sitten esitellään väkivaltaa ratkaisuksi kaikkeen. Eli niissä sitten kaikki erilaiset opetetaan pesäpallomailoilla sekä kivääreillä olemaan samaa mieltä kuin nämä suuret mielipiteen muokkaajat, joiden mielestä kaikkien pitää olla samaa mieltä kuin he itse. 

Eli osa ihmisistä herättelee sellaisia harhaluuloja, että esimerkiksi kaikki seksuaalisiin vähemmistöihin kuuluvat henkilöt olisivat oikeasti samanlaisia. Tai heidän suuntautumisensa oman identiteettinsä suhteen olisi täysin samanlaista. Ja kuten olemme monesti huomanneet, niin myös vähemmistöihin kuuluvat miehet sekä naiset ovat joskus aivan yhtä “järkeviä” kuin niin sanotut valtaväestöön kuuluvat ihmiset ovat. 

Kun ajatellaan esimerkiksi sukupuoli-identiteettiä, niin tietenkin yhteiskunta muovaa sitä, mikä on oma roolimme yhteiskunnassa riippumatta siitä, mihin ruumiiseen olemme syntyneet. Ja tässä sitten hiukan muistelen, että jos sukupuoli-identiteettimme on oikeastaan se mikä me olemme, niin tietenkin on olemassa vähintään neljä sukupuolta. Perinteinen mies- ja naissukupuoli ovat ne mitkä näkyvät päälle. Sitten tulee vielä transsukupuolisuus suuntaan tai toiseen. 

Transsukupuolisuus tarkoittaa sitä, että henkilö on joko nainen miehen ruumiissa tai päinvastoin mies naisen ruumiissa.  Siihen kuuluu jossain tapauksissa leikkaus, missä sukuelimet muutetaan kirurgisesti toisen sukupuolen vastaaviksi elimiksi, ja tämä muuten sekoitetaan transvestismin. Transvestiitti tarkoittaa henkilöä, joka haluaa pukeutua vastakkaisen sukupuolen asuihin kun hän on intiimisti toisen kanssa. Eli transvestismiin ei juurikaan kuulu halua “sukupuolen korjausleikkaukseen”, kuten asia kauniisti ilmaistaan. 

Kuitenkin kun puhutaan sukupuoli-identiteetistä sekä sukupuolisesta suuntautumisesta, niin silloin tällöin joku kertoo että ainoat seksuaaliset vähemmistöt ovat homoseksuaalit, mikä ei muuten oikeastaan pidä paikkaansa. On olemassa paljon muitakin asioita, jotka saattavat tuntua ihmisistä “hieman erikoisilta”, ja jos oikein tarkkaan ajatellaan, niin nämä asiat voivat olla hyvin kiusallisia myös niille, jotka ovat periaatteessa heteroseksuaaleja. Vai onko joku ehkä kysynyt  puolisoltaan, että miten olisi esimerkiksi käsiraudat sängyssä, tai ehkä rakastelu hississä tai voisiko toinen pukeutua pehmoleluksi? Nämä asiat sitten voivat olla hyvin kiusallisia niille, joilla on näitä taipumuksia. 

Kun keskustellaan siitä, miksi jostain ihmisestä tulee huonosti käyttäytyvä punkkari, niin mitä itse ajattelet siitä, että et saisi koskaan mitään kiitosta tai positiivista palautetta yhtään mistään mitä teet? Kauanko viitsisit edes yrittää käyttäytyä hyvin, kun tuloksena on aina huutoa sekä tuomitsevia silmäyksiä? Jos ei kukaan muuta kuin anna negatiivista palautetta, niin silloin kyllä ihminen jossain vaiheessa muuttuu sellaiseksi, että hän ei edes enää yritä käyttäytyä normien mukaan.  

Tässä vain sitten tarkoitin näitä yleisimpiä asioita. Ja kun palataan sukupuolen tutkimukseen, niin nykyään eivät työt enää määräydy sukupuolen mukaan. Eli monilla miehillä on aivan samalla tavoin naispuolisia esimiehiä ja työtovereita, joiden käytös sekä luulot “miehisestä osaamisesta” ovat hieman epärealistisia. Tuolla tarkoitan sitä, että moni nainen huutaa hädissään “Mikaa” apuun joutuessaan esimerkiksi hyökkäyksen kohteeksi tai kantamaan raskaita esineitä. 

He eivät ymmärrä sitä, että tällä miespuolisella työkaverilla ei ehkä ole sen enempää valmiuksia puuttua tähän ongelmaan kuin hänellä itsellään. Eli nykyään mies voi olla naista heikompi, tai siitäkään ei puhuta, että kaikki miehet eivät osaa kiinnittää esimerkiksi hyllyä seinään. Ja jos nainen harrastaa “fitnessiä” niin silloin hän saattaa olla miestä heikompi, eikä kukaan mies varmaan halua olla työpaikan epävirallinen turvamies, varsinkaan jos hänellä ei ole koulutusta tuon tehtävän hoitamiseen. 

Yhteiskunta muuttaa meidän käsitystämme sukupuolisuudesta melko paljon. Ja esimerkiksi nykyään naisia taitaa olla lääkäreinä melkein enemmän kuin miehiä, kun taas muutama kymmenen vuotta sitten tilanne oli se, että naiset toimivat sairaanhoitajina sekä miehet lääkäreinä. Sukupuolen tutkimus on oikeastaan varmaan monille outo tutkimuksen ala, jossa joudutaan keskustelemaan asioita, jotka ovat oikeastaan monille vieraita. Mutta samalla osa noista asioista on sellaisia, että niiden avulla ihminen on ikään kuin poistettu omasta toveripiiristään. 

Eli joskus ainakin itselleni on tullut sellainen käsitys, että esimerkiksi homoseksuaalien piireissä on joitakin ihmisiä pakotettu osallistumaan “Pride”-kulkueeseen, vaikka he eivät sitä ole halunneet tehdä. Tuo pakottaminen on tapahtunut pelottelemalla yhteisöstä pois sulkemisella. Eli joskus ikään kuin olisi toisia pakotettu istumaan kaikki vapaa-aikansa niissä nahkatakkia käyttävien miesten paikoissa, eikä heille ole sallittu muuta elämää. 

Tässä muuten tarkoitan sitä, että ei se seksuaalisuudesta puhuminen ole kaikille aivan niin helppoa, kuin annetaan ymmärtää. Ja noissa piireissä on osaa ihmisistä pakotettu pukeutumaan ikään kuin jonkun pukukoodin mukaan. Sekä ainakin joidenkin elokuvien pohjalta olen päätellyt, että ennen tuohon piiriin kuului yliseksuaalinen asennoituminen kaikkiin asioihin. Mutta samalla tietenkin voidaan puhua myös väkivallasta sekä siitä, mikä rooli sukupuolella on näissä asioissa. 

Kun keskustellaan väkivallasta, niin usein se ymmärretään vain miesten ongelmaksi. Nainen ottaa kotonaan turpiin, kun mies on väkivaltainen. Kuitenkin naiset saattavat pahoinpidellä miestään esimerkiksi pesäpallomailalla tai sitten uhkaavat miestään sillä, että veli tai uusi siippa tulee mukaan tähän tappeluun. Samoin naiset ovat joissain tapauksissa kertoneet uudelle siipalleen, että heidän entinen poikaystävänsä on pahoinpidellyt heitä, ja sitten on haettu kotoa kättä pidempää tai sitten käyty vähän opettamassa naisten kunnioitusta kaverien kanssa. Ja noista asioista voidaan lukea Alibista. Eli naisen isku ei muka tee kipeää kun se iskeytyy miehen kasvoihin. Tähän kuuluu joskus sellainen törkeä nöyryyttäminen kavereiden edessä, ja joskus myös uhkailu sekä pilkkaaminen ovat tällaisessa tapauksessa hyvin yleistä. 

Kun keskustellaan sukupuolisuhteista, niin aina välillä kysyn itseltäni, “miksi naiselle ei sallita useita partnereita, miehelle ne ovat ikään kuin plussaa vain?”. Tämä asia varmasti on tullut monille ihmisille eteen, kun he kohtaavat normaaleja ihmisiä. Miksi tämä asia on edelleen sama kuin ennen? Samoin nykyään naiset voivat mennä upseerin virkaan, ja kuitenkin he odottavat että heille availlaan ovia työpaikoilla. Eli eikö olekin mukavaa tämä tasa-arvo, kun naisista ⅔ pääsee AUK:hon, jotta he saavat hyvän kokemuksen asevoimista. Mutta oletteko koskaan tavanneet miespuolista osastonhoitajaa sairaalassa? Eikä monissa työpaikoissa ole helppoa olla mies, jonka pitäisi hakea oikeutta kohdattuaan seksuaalista häirintää. Tämä sama asia, joka oikeuttaa miehen hankkimaan esiaviollisia seksikokemuksia kuitenkin tekee tilanteen, missä hän kokee seksuaalista häirintää sellaiseksi, että hän ei ehkä osaa omaa intimiteettiään puolustaa. 

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.fi/

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.fi/p/miksi-jotkut-opiskelijat-joutuvat.html

About the truth and lies, what is written by poets and historians

Kimmo Huosionmaa

None historian ever told the absolute truth, and the history has been faked from ancient Greece. The reason, why historians told lies about the leaders was practical. If the leaders of the nations didn’t like the texts, what historians wrote, their fate was very painful death in the mouth of emperors pet crocodile or lion. In the real world, the politics have been the ruling element when historians wrote their texts.


When we are observing the familiar books like Julius Caesar’s ” War in Gallic” we must consider, that there are many things, what makes us to suspect that this book is some kind of ”better version” about the things, what claimed to happen, when Julius Caesar was head of the legions in Gallic. I believe that some of those texts are written in some European courts in the medieval period, or they can be made later.


The part of the book, where Caesar tells about the invasion of Britannia is a part, what is not written any master of poems and rhetorics. And when we are looking at the pictures of Dover straight, we must see that the horses are not suitable in that place because the crag is so high. So did somebody made that mistake on purpose? Another part of this column of the text is full of errors, and all story feels like they were in some taverna.


So if the writer made those errors on purpose, we must ask does he lived at the same time as Caesar. In this case, that part of the text has been written for making Caesar suspected as the liar. But if it is written after Caesar’s time, we must consider, that this text might be written in somewhere in Danmark, and it might be portrayed the coast of Sjelland or some other island.


We must say that there is no evidence, that Caesar ever visited north as Danmark. But when we are talking about his book, we must say that even this book is not probably written by Caesar himself. Or part of that book is maybe written by himself, but there might be many columns, what are written after Caesar’s death. And if he hired some professional writers, those persons might make mistakes on purpose, for making Caesar seem like the liar.


Many writers have also been writing false things, because of they afraid that if the emperor doesn’t like them they would be executed. This fate was faced Cicero, the famous Roman poet, and historian. He was killed by Antonius, and his tongue was nailed to the wall. It’s very sad end for great writer and speaker of history. In this case, we must say, that Marcus Antonius was not able to handle critics what he faced as the rank of the emperor.


And if the writings of some persons were not satisfied rulers, those men were executed. Even in the modern era, there are people sitting in jail because they have written something, what was uncomfortable for the rulers. When we are talking about leaders of the nations, they sometimes think, that every problem will be handled by arresting journalists and writers. But when we are thinking about the role of media, we must say that there are cases in history, that reporters start to publish texts, what would protect authoritarian and support censorship.


This is called ”official press”. Some countries like that they have freedom of speech, but only persons who have right to publish their texts are the ”official reporters”. In those countries, the press is in the main role to justify the political police control, and arresting what is targeted for the members of the opposition. So the press could also be a part of the authoritarian government and support the persecution what is targeted to political resistance.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-truth-and-lies-what-is-written-by.html

Mietteitä siitä kuinka media on maassamme muuttunut.

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Tapaus “Hakkarainen” on taas ollut esillä hieman toisenlaisissa uutisissa, kuin mihin on totuttu. Tämä kuvaa sitä muutosta, mikä mediassa on tapahtunut, ja nimenomaan se, että tästä asiasta puhutaan kuvastaa sitä, että kansanedustaja ei ole enää mikään “kiiltokuvapoika” tai “-tyttö”, jonka pitää olla virheetön. Toki tällainen asia on hiukan kiusallinen sekä kansanedustuslaitokselle että myös tuolle edustajalle itselleen, mutta tietenkin tämä osoittaa sen, että media on alkanut kohdella myös “suuria ja mahtavia” ihmisiä niin, että he ovat aivan tavallisia kuolevaisia.

Kuitenkin joskus olen ajatellut, että tällaisilla valtion johtoa koskevilla uutisilla on saatettu jossain vaiheessa yrittää saada aikaan sensuuria koskevaa lainsäädäntöä sekä myös peitellä vaikkapa korkeiden virkamiesten harjoittamaa korruptiota. Näissä tapauksissa on saatettu joskus menneisyydessä käyttää hyväksi poliisin tiedustelua tällaisen kiusallisen tiedon hankkimiseen.


Ja tietenkin sillä, että kansanedustajista paljastetaan kiusallista tietoa saa aikaan sen, että jotkut henkilöt saattavat alkaa eduskunnassa vaatia sitä, että maahamme asetetaan sensuuri, mikä koskee esimerkiksi henkilön yksityiselämää koskevan tiedon levittämistä. Mieleeni tulee sellainen asia, että olisiko “Tapaus Aarnio” ollenkaan tuomiolla, jos maamme eläisi 1970-luvun median mukaan, vai olisiko tuo tapaus vain sivuutettu olan kohautuksella, koska se “vahingoittaa yleistä luottamusta poliisiin”?


Tässä en tarkoita pelkästään Suomea, vaan esimerkiksi USA:ssa FBI tai joku muu poliisiviranomainen maailmassa on saattanut “Kylmän sodan” aikaan jakaa tietoa lehdille, jotta se saisi aikaan haluamaansa lainsäädäntöä. Ja tässä en sitten viitsi muuten ryhtyä luettelemaan kaiken maailman tiedustelu-ja turvallisuuspalveluja, joiden tehtäviin kuuluu muiden viranomaisten toiminnan valvonta.


Jos tuollainen viranomaisten toiminta politisoituu, niin silloin ne saattavat käyttää aikaansa hankkimalla epäilyttävää tietoa valtion johdosta, ja tuota tietoa sitten voidaan helposti käyttää siihen, että valtiossa aletaan ajaa niitä lakeja, joita poliisin tai tiedustelun esimiehet haluavat säädettävän. Joten tässä sitten voidaan sanoa, että tiedustelupalvelut ovat hyviä renkejä mutta huonoja isäntiä.

Kuitenkin tässä lopulta mietin sitä, että miten monta lähentely- tai jopa vakavaa seksuaalirikosta koskevaa tapausta on maamme historiassa peitelty sillä, että tällainen tieto on valtiosalaisuus? Ja kuinka monta salkkua on kansanedustajien toimesta unohtunut esimerkiksi Shellin baariin?

Samoin mietin että mitä kaikkea nämä hyvin tunnetut ja varakkaat ihmiset ovat tehneet maailmanlaajuisesti. Suomessa nämä asiat ovat olleet melko hyvällä tolalla, mutta kuitenkin esimerkiksi Ahti Karjalaisen alkoholiongelmien peittely on saanut minut miettimään sitä, että mitä esimerkiksi itäblokissa on tapahtunut näiden asioiden kanssa?

https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/artikkeli/is-kaatokannissa-ollut-teuvo-hakkarainen-repi-paivi-rasasen-hiuksia-vuosi-sitten-kylla-se-paanahassa-tuntui/6703058

https://vapaaverkkojulkaiseminen.blogspot.fi/

Why media will handle only a negative part of the life?

Kimmo Huosionmaa


The problem with media is that there will ever be introduced an average person's life. A person who is the main character in documents and movies is always some kind of ultimate version of people what represented of some lifestyle, what is introduced in those programs. Do you think that Pablo Escobar is some kind of an average version of the drug dealer? That man had billions of cash, but does some so-called “street level"'drug dealer that kind of money, or does he even dream about that, when that person hangs around some shopping center and sells some crack-capsules. What made Escobar so frightening person, was his money.


He could hire mercenaries to support his reputation. But I always thought that Escobar was only a shield man for some other actors in that dirty business. If people have money, he could do almost everything, but if he want’s to hire a mercenary, must he have the right relationships. Nobody wants to get smoked that the person has been worked as a mercenary. That’s why they take jobs only from agents who they trust. And being mercenary in somewhere Africa is the little bit different than making murders in normal western State. If a person will smoke that he is an assassin, will he or she punish by the court of law? The line of that kind of people is extremely tough. Those prisoners ever get out from prison.


But in those cases like Escobar, we might see what is the direction, where media sometimes goes. I don't know why they are not writing about guys who were in gangs and after that, they began to live a normal life without any problems. Why the objective of those documents is always so negative? They always begin that kind of problems with interest, but soon after intros, the journalist really begins to show really bad attitude for that case. They just are beginning to find some errors in that case, and sometimes the information what has been given to people is very grotesque.


They bring in front of the public eye some that targets friends, who might be in jail. But they never tell to people, why those people were arrested and what was a crime, where convictions came. And of course, they never tell to people, how long those "criminals" were been in jail. Only thing what is mentioned, has been that those persons are convicted for some crimes. If we see that kind of journalism realistic, we must be naive.


There is always news where drug user brutally killed the people who helped them. But when we are taking a focus in those stories, we must realize that narcotics users might be very dangerous and unpredictable because they have hallucinations. But when we are talking about those cases, there have been only a couple of that kind of cases in the Europe. And didn't anyone told those people, that if somebody uses drugs, he might be blackmail by his fellows to let them in?


And why reporters only take this kind of crimes on the front pages of newspapers? In here I must ask, is the help what came to those persons so altruistic at all? Why they bought a cell phone to that guy? I know that these are the most brutal worlds, what anybody can write, but didn't anybody tell to those people, that money should ever give drug user or alcoholics. They just buy more drugs with that money. When narcotics control the person, he or she might not able to control his or her actions, and that's why those people might be dangerous. But why media tells stories about only those cases, what ended sadly way?

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/