Pimeä vehreys peittää maan

Rakastan näitä loppukesän ja alkusyksyn öitä. Ulkona on pimeää, muttei niin pimeää ettei puiden ja maan vihreys loisi omaa tunnelmaansa ympäristöön. Nuorempana saatoin kävellä tuntikausia tuota ihanuutta kuulostellen ja tunnustellen. Silloin se loi jotenkin tyhjän, surumielisen, haikean, nautinnollisen tunnelman, johon oli ihana uppoutua. Nyt en ole varma, mitä se luo, mutta nautin sen tuomista muistoista ja tunteista.

Rahaa ei ruokaa

Nigerissä on käynnissä nälänhätä. Tästä kertoo mm. Washington Post, CNN, Worldbank ja monet muut. Globalisaatioinstituutilla on mielenkiintoinen ehdotus ongelman ratkaisemiseksi.

Näyttää siltä, että Nigerissä ei ole varsinaista (ruokapulaa. Kaupoissa on ruokaa, mutta hinnat ovat liian korkeita huonon sadon ja länsimaiden maatalousprotektionismin köyhdyttämille paimentolaisille. Maataloustuotteiden hinnat ovat nousseet sekä siksi, että valtiovalta on asettanut uuden 19% veron niille ja siksi, että huonon sadon vuoksi ruokaa joudutaan tuomaan ulkomailta.

Toisin sanoen, maan infrastruktuuri toimii riittävän hyvin tuodakseen paikalle riittävässä määrin ruokaa, mutta kaikilla ihmisillä ei ole varaa ostaa. Länsimaissa on tapana antaa köyhälle, työttömälle ihmiselle rahaa, jolla tämä voi sitten ostaa tarvitsemansa ruoan. Ehkäpä samaa periaatetta pitäisi soveltaa tässäkin. Kehitysapu voitaisiin jakaa köyhille suoraan euroina ja dollareina ja nämä voisivat sen jälkeen kävellä paikalliseen kauppaan ostamaan tarvitsemansa ruoan.

Rahan jakaminen väestölle on helpompaa ja nopeampaa kuin yrittää järjestää ruokakuljetuksia paikan päälle. Lisäksi kauppiailla on insentiivit tuottaa juuri sellaista ruokaa kuin ihmiset haluavat ja kykenevät kustantamaan mahdollisimman tehokkaasti. Raha-apu ei ainoastaan parantaisi köyhien ihmisten kärsimystä nopeammin ja tehokkaammin kuin ruoka-apu, vaan se myös kehittäisi maan taloudellista infrastruktuuria ja auttaisi ehkäisemään tällaisia ongelmia tulevaisuudessa.

Sen sijaan ruoka-avun lähettäminen pahimmassa tapauksessa tuhoaa paikallisen kauppiaiden mahdollisuudet halvan ruoan toimittamisessa, koska ilmainen vaihtoehto syö markkinat ja näin luo ongelmia pidemmällä aikavälillä.

Lähettäkäämme Nigeriin siis rahaa ja jaetaan se sitä tarvitseville sen sijaan, että ostaisimme kallista Eurooppalaista ylituotantoruokaa ja dumppaisimme sen kehitysavun nimikkeellä nälkää näkeville.


It seems that there is in fact no shortage of food in Niger. It's shortage of money that is the problem. Because of bad harvest last year and because of European Union's agricultural policies, the

Kaavoituksesta

Suomessa ihmetellään paraikaa, kuinka saada asuntojen hintoja alaspäin, eli kuinka saada rakentaminen riittävälle tasolle kysyntään nähden. Hallituskin on huolestunut ja siltä taholta on ehdotettu muun muassa pakkokaavoitusta kunnille. Miten tuo ajatus toimisi, ei ole ehdotuksista käynyt ilmi. Kuntaliitto vastustaa ajatusta jyrkästi ja haluaisi puuttua pitkiin valitusaikoihin kaavoituksessa.

Ongelma näkyy ulospäin siten, että esim. asuinrakennuksia ei pääkaupunkiseudulla rakenneta riittävästi. Kun asuintilaa on vähän ja ostajia paljon, nousevat hinnat niin paljon, että uusi tasapaino kysynnän ja tarjonnan välillä löytyy. Kun asuntojen määrä ei hintojen noustessa jousta, nousevat neliöhinnat ja ihmiset ostavat pienempiä asuntoja. Tätä tilannetta kuvaa hyvin se, että pääkaupunkiseudulla saa pienestä yksiöstä maksaa saman, tai enemmän kuin isosta omakotitalosta jossain syrjemmällä seudulla.

Rakentamisen vähyyteen on monta syytä. Yksi niistä on se, että kunnat eivät halua kaavoittaa kovin paljoa uusia asuinalueita. Tämä johtuu siitä, että kunta joutuu maksamaan kunnallistekniikan rakentamisen alueelle kauan ennen kuin alueelle muuttavat ihmiset korvaavat menetykset tuomillaan verotuloilla. Ja vaikka kunta kaavoittaisikin aluetta riittävästi, niin kaavoituksen hyväksymisen jälkeen löytyy aina tahoja, jotka vastustavat kaavoitusta ja vievät asian oikeuteen milloin milläkin syyllä. Kuntaliiton mukaan tämä viivästyttää kaavoituksen voimaan tuloa helposti vuosilla.

Erityisen ikäväksi tällaiset oikeusprosessit tulevat siksi, että rakennusyrityksillä on insentiivit tukea kansalaisjärjestöjä, jotka yrittävät kaataa kilpailevan yrityksen saamaa kaavoitusta. Jos yritys onnistuisi tällaisessa, niin sen tuottamien asuntojen myyntihinta nousee, mutta samalla yritys joutuu suojautumaan vastaavanlaisilta hyökkäyksiltä ja kaikki häviävät. En tiedä tapahtuuko tällaista Suomessa, mutta ainakin yritykset (valitettavasti) hyötyisivät tällaisesta käytöksestä. Olisi siis mielenkiintoista tietää, kuka maksaa valittajien oikeudenkäyntikustannukset.

Poliitikkojen on myös usein vaikea ymmärtää, että jotta asuntotuotanto olisi tehokasta, jotta se toimisi oikein, välillä pitää rakentaa liikaa. Pakko ei ole sellainen, että siitä liikaa rakentamisesta olisi jotain hyötyä (tosin kuluttajat toki hyötyvät ylitarjonnasta), vaan siitä että kun markkinoilla kilpailevat yritykset yrittävät arvioida tulevaisuutta ja tekevät riskilaskelmia siitä, kuinka paljon kannattaa rakentaa, ovat arviot joskus hiukan pielessä yläkanttiin ja joskus alakanttiin. Kun kaikki yritykset tekevät arvionsa perusteella päätöksiä, välillä kokonaispäätökset ovat hiukan ylä-, välillä hiukan alakanttiin ja välillä osuvat kohdalleen. Kuten eräs bridgeä pelaava tuttuni sanoi, jos ei koskaan tuplaa kotipelejä, tuplaa pelejä aivan liian harvoin. Vastaavasti, jos ei koskaan yli-investoi, investoi aivan liian vähän.

Kaavoitus on yritys ratkaista tiettyjä julkishyödyke-, -haitake- ja koordinaatio-ongelmia. Itse näen kaavoituksella ratkottavan kolmea erityisongelmaa. Asuinrakennusten arvo on korkeampi, jos kukaan ei voi ostaa naapuritonttia ja rakentaa siihen tehdasta. Vastaavasti, jos asuntojen arvo voi laskea, jos joku rakentaa viereen oikein ruman talon - ajatelkaa esimerkiksi Kruunuhaan merenranta-asuntojen arvoa Merihaan rakentamista ennen ja jälkeen. Kolmannekseen ajateltakoon Kehä II -rakentamista. Kaupunkien päättäjät pitivät jo kauan sitten mahdollisena, että Kehä II:n rakentaminen tulee kannattavaksi/välttämättömäksi. Siispä kaavoittajat haluavat varata tällaiselle tulevalle väylälle tilaa kaavoituksella.

Käsittääkseni nuo ovat ne jossakin määrin järkevät syyt kaavoitukselle. Jos kokee tietävänsä muita järkeviä syitä, sana on vapaa kommenteissa.

Jos kaavoituksella on tarkoitus saavuttaa yllämainitut tavoitteet, niin nykyinen mikromanagerointi ei ole lainkaan välttämätöntä. Riittäisi, kun kunta määrittäisi tietyn alueen puistoksi, tietyn alueen asuinalueeksi, tietyn alueen teollisuusalueeksi. Asuinalueelle ei saisi rakentaa saastuttavia tehtaita, mutta teollisuusalueelle saisi kukin halutessaan rakentaa asuntoja (tietoisena siitä, että vieressä tulee olemaan haisevia tehtaita).

Asuntojen koko, muoto, väri, tyyli, määrä ja kaikki muu voitaisiin jättää vapaasti markkinoiden ratkaistavaksi. Jos esimerkiksi pientalo/rivitaloalueen osakeyhtiö haluaisi vieressä olevan metsikön säilyvän puistona, se voisi ostaa kyseisen maa-alueen osaksi osakeyhtiön omaisuutta jo _ennen_ kuin ensimmäistäkään taloa rakennetaan. Näin osakkaat voisivat keskenään päättää siitä, onko järkevämpää rakennuttaa alueelle muutama talo lisää, vai pitää metsikkö metsikkönä.

Lisäksi kunnallistekniikkaa tuottavat kunnan monopolit voisivat hyvin periä kustannusperäisen hinnan kunnallistekniikan vetämisestä alueelle (hmm, tekevätköhän näin jo nykyään - toivottavasti). Ideana siis se, että viemäröinti, vesi, sähkö, yms. -tekniikan vetämisen ja katuteiden rakentamisen alueelle maksaisi rakentava yritys eikä kunta. Näin rakentamisen kustannukset tulisivat alueelle muuttavien maksettaviksi, eikä koko kunnan asukkien maksettaviksi. Tämä myöskin toisi insentiivin ottaa käyttöön ne rakentamattomat alueet, joiden ympärillä jo on valmis kunnallistekniikka.

Sampo kirjoittaa samasta aiheesta fi-libissä.

Mystery

I just finished watching "The Farm" the episode 205 of tv series Battlestar Galactica, the latest to have come out. I watched the first season last spring and was hooked, right from the beginning.

I loved Galactica when I was a kid. We used to watch it with my older brother and then make fighters and ships from legos and play at being Galactica. Still I don't think I want to see the old series again. It's too 70s for me. Too, how would I put it, naive, in its own way. And I don't say that meaning anything bad, it was a great show but for me it's history. I really like the new one and what they've done with it.

But I was not going to write about the old Galactica. Instead, I just remember to say that this Galactica is the only tv show I currently have any patience at following. I watched and liked Carnevale while it lasted - I heard that there's not going to be a third season, though I'm not sure. I tried Deadwood. Watched it like 4-5 episodes and didn't like it. Something was missing there that little something that makes you wait for the next episode and want to watch the next and then the next and so on.

I never really got into Star Trek. They (all the different series in the universe) are too naive and 70s for me as well. I did like babylon five tremendously. I'm sad that Firefly didn't take off as a series at first try; I loved it. Hope the movie makes a gazillion dollars and they get the series restarted.

The thing that is common in Galactica, Babylon 5 and Firefly - at least - is that they inspire this great feeling of mystery. That there is so much more in the universe that is waiting to be found out. And that you wish to find out all the things the series will tell you. They are quite different things in each of the series above.

This feeling of mystery is something I look for and crave for in a tv-series, in a movie, in a book, in a comic book. I guess that's the main reason why I've read so much fantasy and still sometimes do. Though nowadays I need to find fantasy from the fringe, something different, something new. Because the old stories of knights in their shining armors, wizards chanting their spells, and barbarians raising their battle axes and boozing off, no longer create that mystery.

Mystery, perhaps I should re-name the title of this post originally named Battlestar Galactica (how original).

Moral Philosophy

Some of you may already know that moral philosophy is one of my hobbies. Currently I find a rule based utilitarianism quite attractive for several reasons.

About a month ago I had a short discussion with a friend of mine about contraception. To be precise, we talked about who should pay for them and how the cost should be divided when two people are in a relationship. She thought that the right division would be fifty-fifty. I agreed that it sounds like a rational choice, but that there are some considerations that might suggest a greater share for the man.

I had already passed from discussion of what I believe to be right into trying to understand the thought I had just had at that moment and trying to find out whether it was right or not. I had also in my mind jumped from the specific the pills scenario to a general scenario in a relationship where the other party needs to constantly do something for the relationship that might cause harm, or pain, or any other thing usually considered negative.

As my friends may have found out, I am usually more interested in talking about things I am not sure about than those that I've already tested for many and many times. The reason is that I think by talking. Active criticism and new ideas while talking create new ideas within me and my mind races through them finding lots and lots of interesting things.

But back to the problem at hand. My first idea was that if the other person does somehow suffer from doing the thing for the relationship, he should be compensated for that and that the compensation could be such that the other person pays more of the monetary cost.

My friend, of course, was appalled, not quite understanding that I had jumped from the world of actuals to the world of hypotheticals. [Mental note: Remember to try to make the jump from actuals to hypotheticals more clear to conversation participants.] She said she will not be a victim and also mentioned that nowadays there are no such bad consequences from using pills, at least if you find the right pills for yourself (so maybe pills are a bad example for what I was thinking about). Our discussion abruptly ended and I got back to thinking about it in the evening and had a long discussion with another friend of mine.

From simple utilitarian perspective it would seem that it is fair that the other person compensates the negative things the other one has to go through. The simplest way of compensating this kind of thing would be to shift the monetary burden the other way around. But for some reason this idea was appalling to the person next to me. And since I had a vague feeling that there's something right that it does I wanted to find out what's going on.

From my perspective, it comes down to incentives. Now this is surely not the only avenue to look at this, but its the one easiest and closest to my heart. The rule based utilitarianism states that we should have moral rules that create incentives for people to do right. In a family, we want to maximise the well being of the whole family and secondarily to be fair in how the well being is distributed. If we want to be able to make good decisions about how to make the family happy, we need to know truthfully what people feel about different issues.

So we need a truth revealing mechanism as part of the moral rule set, i.e. everybody should have an incentive of telling truthfully how they feel about things. (This idea is one of the reasons why I'm not monogamous, but that's a topic for another post.) To see why this is important, we only need to look at some specific situation with several options. If people truthfully tell what they want we are in much better position to start searching for the best possible solution than if the attitude of each person is to try to push the solution to their current most preferred solution. The other one creates a starting point, where the couple can start searching for a good answer and the other a situation where they struggle for power.

Now the problem of compensating another person from their internal suffering is that it breaks the truth revealing principle. It creates an incentive to lie. We people are not that noble animals that we are never tempted to do something that makes us better off at the expense of others. So we should not adopt a principle, where the man pays more for the the pills, if the woman suffers from taking them (again just a hypothetical).

Now that we've ruled this kind of solution out, we can next ask what should we do? First of all, I would state that I don't think 50/50 splitting of the cost is the only right answer. Rather the right answer is something both are truly happy with and in some cases it might be the woman paying everything and in some cases the man paying everything or something in between (for example, if the other person was poor enough not to be able to afford them at all, it would make sense for a rich person to pay more of them, perhaps even all of it. After all, the rich person would profit more from them having those pills than them not having them).

Then to continue, if indeed there was a situation where the other person was constantly doing something that caused him suffering and this was something needed for the relationship, what should they do?

My thoughts on this are far from finished, but at least they should search for solutions that did not require the suffering. Possibly the other person should take into account the suffering the other person was going through, but how exactly, I do not yet know. Whenever possible, I would strive for the option of getting rid of the suffering, though.

(non-)Monogamy

Irrette wrote in her blog about being single and referred to a bunch of posts she had written previously about not being monogamous. I was surprised that there were people in my circles who had so similar ideas to relationships as I do. I read through all those four old posts of Irre and for most parts they could have been written by me.

I found the idea of non-monogamy a couple of years back and it hit me like a thousand volts. I've never liked the idea of requiring things from others, especially in close relationships. Now at this point of writing, I have a feeling that many people read that as me not wanting to give others what they want. Nothing could be further from the truth. I feel less comfortable instisting on something from other people than doing something on behalf of others. Actually that is too mildly put. I don't do that in relationships. Period. And I want to make people around me happy.

Which takes us back to monogamy at the heart of which from my point of view is the requirement for the other party not to have certain kinds of fun with anybody else. It's an idea I just don't understand. If I have a good relationship with another person, it doesn't really matter what she does when I'm around (as long as she doesn't put me at risk of disease, or whatnot). Or to be more precise, the more fulfilling her life is in the other sphere's of life, the better. Some people also seem to think that not being monogamous means that you just want to go around having one night stands and don't want to have a relationship. In my case the truth is quite the opposite. Now what I want from a relationship is something large enough that it deserves its own post some time later. I could also go on and talk about stupidity of jealousy, and all other things, but I'll leave them for later.

London bombings

The post edited on August 12th. Thanks to Ronja for comments.

Many of you may already know that I was on a bus going to London at the time of the first London bombings on July 7th. I'm writing this entry partly because of a request from a colleague who is doing research on mobile emergency announcement systems and sensemaking in connection to emergencies.

I woke up in Oxford around 7AM eager to get an early start to London. I had come there on Tuesday to meet a friend and would spend Thursday in London shopping for clothes. My plane was to leave Heathrow 10.20AM on Friday, so I would only have Thursday for shopping. So it was important for me to get there early. I also had a lunch meeting arranged with a libertarian friend of mine on the other side of London at 1PM.

Alas, my trip had a bad start from the beginning. Another guest spent at least a half an hour in the shower, which delayed me considerably. Still I got on a bus and was merrily getting to London, when my sister called me on my cell phone to ask if I was okay. The time of call was probably 9.15 or so. I could not check the time afterwards, because my Nokia Series 60 phone only retains time of call for each caller's newest call (and since my sister had called again later I could not check the exact time anymore). She could still reach me (probably) because I was only approaching London at the time. She told me that there had been explosions, at least two, in the subway system, and that it was not yet known if it was terrorism, or something else. I told about this to the passenger next to me, who was going to an exam and became quite worried. When I got up and went downstairs to ready myself for getting off, I talked about the situation with two other passengers who had heard of it and that it was only a glitch in the electric system and no terrorist attack was involved.

My hostel was at Shepherd's Bush and I stepped out of the Oxford express at Notting Hill Gate stop. (I noticed later that I should have stepped out one stop earlier, but I didn't care about that so much before, since Notting Hill should be an easy place to get off at and I should be able to use subway anyway. I could not really concieve of a situation where the whole subway system would be offline.) I walked to the subway station entrance and saw that it was closed. Lots of men dressed in the subway neon colors at the entrance talking to people. I waited around for a while (perhaps 5-10 minutes) to get to one of them and asked what was going on. They told me that bombs had detonated in the subway and that the whole subway system was closed, as well as all bus traffic in Zone 1. I asked them directions for Shepherd's Bush and started walking.

Got to the hostel, which was pretty easy to find, around 10AM. Put my stuff into a locked backroom, since check-in was only after 2PM (or something like that). Received some text messages from friends who were worried, perhaps during the walk or after I got to the hostel. I spent some time talking and asked the personnel to put the Tv on to follow the news about the bombings. It seemed they hadn't even heard the news. I tried to call friends, but could not connect to the network. I tried to send SMSs but sending failed. Then I took a look at the nearby shopping mall to see if anything interesting was there.

When I got back to the hostel, I found that there was an Internet terminal at the hostel and I logged on. Then I logged into my universitys webmail site and sent an email to a friend and told him that I would appreciate getting news via SMS, if and when new information was available. Through the day, he sent me 6 messages telling the most important developments (including the critical information that Heathrow Express was not running). Then I started thinking about contacting other friends. I knew there were some irc clients that can be used through web and googled for web irc. So I found cgi-irc, which was amazingly simple to use (just give a nick and a channel you want to join and you're ready to go); I joined some channels which I use for keeping in touch with friends and told them "Yes, I am in London and yes, I am okay". I also asked them to spread the information around.

To be truthful, I was amazed by how many people knew that I was in London and how many people were worried about me. Somehow I didn't think they'd remember, or care. Sometimes it is good to be positively surprised by your friends. (Of course, knowing my friends I shouldn't have been but, there it is, I was). I wasn't really afraid for my own safety. I had arrived in London almost an hour after the bombings and thought it quite unlikely that there would be more attacks during the day. I was anxious to get a message through to my friends, though. Luckily my sister had reached me, so I was confident that she'd let my family know that I was alright. I felt bad that my friends might be wondering if I was okay (especially since they wouldn't be able to get any calls through to me to check). So I was intensely relieved to find that computer.

From here on, my memories on the order of things starts to get blurred. So I'll first tell you what I did during the day and then try to parse the different rumors I heard and to remember how I tried to make sense of what was happening.

The day was approaching noon and I decided not to abandon my shopping for such a little thing as these bombings.
So I walked to Notting Hill Gate and went to eat in an Italian restaurant (which had really nice food). Then I went to nearby shops to find some clothes. When I didn't find anything interesting, I decided to continue to Oxford Street - walking this time. Soon it started to rain and I stopped into a bookshop for a while to pass the time. I just love bookshops, so that was okay (though I'd already passed my credit limit for books in Oxford). Continued the walk, which took longer than I had expected and finally got to Oxford Street. I went around shopping, most shops were open. I bought some clothes and decided to take a bus back. It was perhaps three or four o'clock in the afternoon.

At one point, while I was traveling in the bus, I suddenly started thinking of the possibility that one of the other passengers was a terrorist with a bomb. It was quite interesting to observe my reactions to this idea. I saw in myself the possibility for a panic should I let myself continue thinking about it. So, instead, I told myself not to feel it and limit thinking of it into the rational part of my brain, which assured the other parts of my mind that the likelyhood of a terrorist to be on this bus is vanishingly small - and then proceeded to make myself feel a little better by checking out the other passengers and making sure I'd notice, if anybody did anything suspicious.

It was a revelation for me that I could actually be so close to such a primal reaction and I knew had I succumbed to it that I could not have regained my self control easily. Still, I did not succumb for which I am extremely glad. I think I may have to use this idea in my roleplaying hobby in some way or another. Perhaps the will checks used in some games do have some merit after all. It will also allow me to understand those who do fall into that primal reaction a little better. That reaction, the place I could have gotten into, was probably the most scary thing that I encountered during that day in London.

Throughout the day, there were several different rumors flying around. Many people had heard that there had been 6 bombs, at one point people even talked about 9 bombs out of which only 6 had gone off. Then the news started talking about 4 bombs and nobody mentioned those others. There was a girl who told that they had been evacuated from their home by police officers who said there was a bomb on the street (if I recall correctly she referred to a trash can). I have a vague recollection that even in the news, they would have spoked of some bomb that they found before it exploded, but my memory may well fail on this.

All in all, many people had the feeling that the government was not telling everything - that they are hiding something. I heard many people saying similar things at the pub next to the hostel, at McDonalds, at the hostel, etc. I heard comments like: "They are hiding something." "They haven't mentioned anything about this thing I heard about, they are hiding something." "There's something going on that they are not telling us." And so on.

Now I can think of several rational explanations for these rumors and why they were not addressed by the government officials. Firstly, they might want to withhold some information which only the police and those responsible could know. This might be useful information to help determine the guilt of future suspects. Secondly, the police might not actually have said that they found a bomb on the street. He might have said (or meant to say) that they suspected a bomb on the street. Or perhaps he did say there was a bomb, because they suspected such, and he really wanted to stress the importance of people leaving the area. Or perhaps the girl had heard it from another person leaving the area or just remembered things wrong.

Whatever the reason for these rumors, there are things that the rescue workers, police, etc. could have done better. For example, if there were places were police did search for hidden bombs and informed some local people of it, they should publish that they did so and whether they found anything (note that currently they mostly seem to tell, if they found things and not so much when they didn't find things. It's the latter kind of situation that creates the feeling of somebody withholding information).

So to enhance emergency communications, all the information that the rescue workers, police, firemen, etc. pass to the public, everything they do should be automatically collected, processed and then as good a report as possible of things done should be published (remembering that some things may have to be withheld, because you might not want the terrorists to know everything about how the emergency organization works). This could be achieved for example if each rescue worker carried a recording device with gps and radio for network connection. It would automatically track and save the movements of the rescue worker. Whenever the worker would start to do something new, he would make a short comment to the recording about what he is about to do. So for example, if he was to evacuate an area because of a possible bomb finding, he would state that he starts to evacuate people because of a possible bomb finding.

In the evening I started thinking about getting to the airport in the morning. I realized that the subway was not working yet and might not be in the morning. I also found out that no busses I could use were going there either. I talked with the subway guard who said that the subway system might be operational in the morning and if it was, it would open (I don't remember whether it was) 5.30am or 6am. So I got up early, a little bit after 5am, got some breakfast from a grocerie store nearby (how I love a country that allows shops to be open at such times). Got into the subway and asked the helping people there how I could get to Heathrow. Some lines weren't operational yet, so he advised me to get the Central to Notting Hill Gate, then District south to Earl's Court and then continue with Piccadilly to Heathrow.

I got on the Central, got off at Notting Hill Gate and found out that neither District, nor Central were running (though the information desks and the subway info worker at Shepherd's Bush told differently). I asked the workers what I should do and they told me to take a bus to some other station from where I could continue with Piccadilly to Heathrow. I don't remember exactly which it was but I think it might have been Turnham Green.

Unfortunately, I got to the right bus, but it went the wrong way. I was on the right bus stop, but didn't realize that both directions used by the one and the same bus stop. I asked about my destination from the driver who told me I was in the wrong bus perhaps after 10 minutes drive. I got off, and found the correct bus. I finally got to Piccadilly line and found myself in Heathrow airport around 8AM.

The crowd at the Heathrow airport was something I never saw in my life before (at any other airport). The queues for check-in weren't so bad. Perhaps 30-50 meters long. I checked in and went to the security check line. The line was so long that it filled the approach area, got to the check-in hall, where it split in two. Each of the lines then continued to the other end of the hall, then across and then the queues almost met in the middle of the hall on the other side. I was sure I'd be in a hurry and not have time to buy whisky in the terminal since it was already past eight o'clock.

I am still amazed at how well things worked there. It took me 45 minutes to queue and get through the security checks. And during that time, the airport workers were constantly going through the queue to find people with flights leaving soon (under 45 minutes) and getting them to a special fast line. So I got to the shopping area in time for shopping a bag full of whisky and eat a little something, before going to the gate. There I got to be one of those who went through the security checks again before getting to the gate. I wonder if the security guys near the gate were even a little bit amazed by my hand luggage when they saw my bag. I have this 2-wheeled bag and I had squeezed 6 bottles of whisky in it. It also dawned on me that whisky bottles are probably rather good weapons for terrorists in aeroplanes. At least a lot better than nail clippers. You can break the glass bottle (which gives you a weapon) and you might be able to use the alcohol as a weapon too (e.g. burning it).

Then I got back to Helsinki-Vantaa airport, where I got my luggage and heard part of an announcement. I didn't hear all of it, but I deduced that there was some kind of catastrophe aid/council for people coming from London. Looking around I saw some tables/chairs behind a screen next to the go out door. I went out and stumbled on a friend who was working there as a catastrophy helper/councellor, or something like that. I talked with her for a while and gave some comments to her supervisor and then started home. I was tired, so tired when I got back home.

So many people dead in such a horrible way. The bombings were a tragedy and I feel sad for all those who lost friends or relatives. And angry at those terrorists. I was amazed at how calmly people of London took the situation and continued their lives.