Blogging quiet lately

I've been very quiet blogging for the past weeks. The reason for that is
the best thing that has happened to my life, perhaps ever.

Ketä äänestäisit eduskuntavaaleissa

Hedelmöityshoitoäänestyksessä kansanedustajat äänestivät sallivan kannan puolesta seuraavasti:

Vihreät - 13/14 (1 tyhjä)
Vasemmistoliitto - 16/19
SDP - 40/52
RKP - 5/8 (1 poissaolo)
Kokoomus - 17/40 (3 poissa)
Keskusta - 13/40 (5 poissa)
Kristilliset - 0/6
Perussuomalaiset - 0/3 (1 poissa)

Vasemmistopuolueet eivät yllättäen itseäni kiinnosta, Keskustan änkyrät vielä vähemmän Kristillisistä tai Perussuomalaisista puhumattakaan. Ode ei ole menossa uudestaan Vihreistä eduskuntaan, joten heilläkään ei ole kunnollista liberaalia ehdokasta Helsingin vaalipiirissä (korjatkaa, jos olen väärässä), eikä piirissä ollut mitään kiinnostusta ehdokkaisiin, jotka vastustaisivat tekijänoikeusmafiaa.

Olin jopa harkinnut sitä, että Kokoomusta voisi äänestää, mutta valitettavasti Kokoomus osoitti konservatiivisen karvansa tässä äänestyksessä. Eli eipä saa Kokoomuskaan ääntäni näissä eduskuntavaaleissa.

Ehkäpä sitä pitää sitten harkita vuoden takaisen päätöksen pyörtämistä ja takinkääntämistä kuin paraskin poliitikko.

Add food and clothes to the list

My list of owned ideas was way too optimistic and short. Read this to find out how cloth design and dishes will become private property. Soon you will have to pay your fee to the hangman, if you dare to make food by yourself (though sooner and more likely a restaurant you eat at will be paying for the hangman).

There's no balance with tyranny

The tyranny of information monopolists shows its face again (via).

Information is information - a tautology with a bite.

Copyrights and patents create a government granted monopoly on information. Supposedly there is a category of information, the creation of which is so important that it has to be rewarded with a monopoly over the information in question. As the above example shows, there are only few positions to which our law regarding information can gravitate towards. One of then, the scary one, the one that we are gravitating towards, is that all information is monopolized.

Imagine a world in which it is illegal to think of a medical procedure without violating somebody's monopoly; imagine a world in which publishing a photograph you took of a public street violates somebedy's monopoly; imagine a world in which publishing a photograph of a product that you have bought and paid for violates somebody's monopoly; imagine a world in which speaking publically of an artist violates somebody's monopoly; imagine a world in which doing perfectly reasonable common sense things, violates somebody's monopoly; imagine a world in which modifying the product you have paid for violates somebody's monopoly; imagine a world in which buying spare parts to your car or printer violates somebody's monopoly. Would you want to guess which ones of the above examples are already with us, right now and right here - and which ones we will see in the next twenty years.

The game of compromise has failed, utterly. The monopolizers create more and more insane demands to always push the compromise further and further toward a world where all knowledge is owned. In time, you may even have to pay somebody for relieving yourself - as somebody comes to own the idea of releasing tension in certain muscles to get rid of large or small quantities of liquid that is stored in a lower part of our body.

The only other gravity well, a stable point, in the ownership of information is to say no more monopolies. Let each person own the information he or she has - but let no one own the right to control how other people use the information, no matter how they get to possess it. (This is not to say that people cannot engage in binding contracts - but just to say that there must be no government granted monopoly on information). It is time for every one of us, who understand how precious information is for all our daily lives to stand up and say no more, or see our through our lives the gradually extending slavery of information monopolists.

Authorities, church, and the Islamic world

Here in Europe, we have a tradition of having two 'authorities' to complain about. Parties that have kicked our individual asses and caused a lot of problems. Not everybody, not even most people, agrees with my assesment, namely government and church*. But still it is there, within our culture to complain about those two parties, if they ever do reach out and do bad enough things. It was the time of enlightenment that brought these ideas into light and very much delegitimized church and government as institutions of authority (which does not say that it succesfully delegitimized them as institutions, but only as authorities).

People are apt to complain about government and about church, if they do anything that goes past their bounds. We have also developed a culture where free criticism of these institutions is important, accepted, and any attepmt to silence such criticism is met with harsh condemnation (again not by everybody, but by many enough to say that it is part of our culture).

In contrast, the people in most Islamic countries have grown up with three different classes of authority. The church, the government (which are sometimes almost one and the same), and the western world. Through past centuries, western countries have ruled many of the islamic areas with force of arms.

Therefore, the situation becomes more complex, unfortunately. The westerners react to Islam, as they would to any religion trying to impose its belief system upon non-believers. Mohammed cartoon episode is a great example of this reaction. Ridiculing the religion who asserts authority has been the important western way of delegitimizing the authority of a religion that is pushing itself too far - in our opinion. So far so good.

But from muslim perspective, it is not a battle between people trying to rid themselves from the authority of church, but a western world that is trying to impose its authority upon the islamic world (the church). The image of the case becomes, not a fight of people trying to rid themselves of the authority, but a fight between one authority trying to impose over another authority.

So our perspective of the situation greatly differs from the perspective of the muslim world. The problem then becomes, how can we get to a world, where we can ridicule a religion that is trying to impose its authority and nose where it does not belong and where the muslim world does not look upon that as western imperialism.

It's a hard problem to solve, but if we don't manage to solve it, we will either have to get used to a lot of muslim world having hostile reactions to criticism of Islam, or to get used to not criticising it. Neither of the solutions is preferable, thus it is important to figure out ways of proceeding towards better future. As an optimist, I think it is possible - world is, in many ways, what we make of it. And even more importantly, what problems we choose to see and solve.


* I should probably add the 'invisible hand' or the 'free market' as another 'authority' in the discussion, but I will omit it here, firstly because it is not relevant to our discussion here and because the free market is an idea, not a group of people and the invisible hand does not have a spokesman who would speak on his behalf - after all it is an aggregate of all the individual decisions we do on the statewide (global) marketplace. (Though in some ways the hatred over the 'authority' of free market and the hand resembles the hatred of the 'authority' of the western world.)

War on Terror(ism)

As everybody probably knows, USA started a War on Terror(ism) a few years ago. The mission has certain lack of clear goal, or perhaps, if taken literally, it has a clear albeit an oxymoronic goal.

Terrorism is a form of warfare - it is a method that a group may use to further their political goal. Fighting a war on terrorism is akin to fighting fighting a war to end civil wars, or to end conventional wars between states. We are not going to see end to war in foreseeable future and we are not going to see end to terrorism as a method of warfare. There is no method with which one can eradicate a strategy from the 'manuals' of war.

Fighting a war against particular terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda, is another matter altogether. A terrorist organization good at what it does is an elusive foe and difficult to fight, but at least fighting against it is at least possible. It is also possible to win such a war, though results are probably never conclusive in the same sense as the victory over Germany was. After all, there is no entity that can surrender and no entity that can announce end to war on the other side. Instead, if victorious the terrorist network in question will wither away losing significance and capabilities to strike.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a misconception between these two things at the highest levels of USA administration which does not bode well for the future.

The greatest inventions in the history of mankind

Today's metro had a quick fact about which inventions people considered to be the greatest in the history of mankind. I don't intend to answer that, but still give my list of the greatest inventions, though not in any particular order.

Fire was listed as the number one invention in the questionnaire quoted. It is the start of an energy age, so it is important indeed. To my understanding, fire is the start of an age, when humans had other means of energy, but flesh, at their disposal. Wind and water mills, use of wind energy in sails, power plants using wood, coal, oil, and nuclear power are all just evolutionary steps after the great invention that energy can be used as a tool.

Which reminds us of the other great invention, lest we downplay the importance of something easily forgotten. The stick and the rock. Probably the first tools mankind ever used. They taught us that we can use things within the world to help us do our bidding. This is even more primary invention than fire and so often forgotten. Sticks and stones allowed us to use our own flesh, our own energy, in ways our bodies were never designed to be used in. Sticks and stones are the start of the age of technology.

Age of technology and energy brought many wonders to humankind. At some point humans found out that fire was not the only source of energy they could harness to their benefit. Animals and plants were domesticated for the benefit of society.

With the combination of technology and (relatively) abundant energy humans could produce more food than those doing the production and many people staked their claims for the surplus. Perhaps it is not surprising that warriors and priests (and of course, prostitutes) were the first ones to succeed. With their wake, or perhaps even before, came artisans and then merchants. Specialization started and it created trade and trade created money. The idea of having a common highly valuable material/thing that everybody would use as the medium for exchange revolutionarized trade and specialization. Salt and metal money could be divided into as small units as necessary and thus trade could happen whenever the buyer wanted the item bought more than the seller (and could afford it). Without money, trade would be rudimentary and could only happen when need is great, because most of the time the buyer would not have anything that the seller would particularly want. With money, human societies were transformed again, for better or worse, into an interconnected and interdependent web.

Then came the first true internet. Discovery of writing enabled people far apart both in distance and time to communicate (though not necessarily full-duplex). Modern inventions such as the phone, the computer, and the Internet are just evolutionary steps of making the age old web better, faster, and raising its storage and copy capabilities, and making the web more efficient.

After the creation of writing, it might be tempting to say nothing 'really new', nothing Big has been invented. Many of the modern inventions are clearly continuances of ages old processes and that is good. But are there others that would be important enough, big enough, and most importantly new enough to warrant in this list?

Social Democrats have started election campaigning

Check this out. I guess the social democrats have decided that they need to do something to maintain their voters and have decided to start early. The movie targets audience starting from 3 years up - and features characters such as Tarja Halonen and Erkki Tuomioja as important good characters saving the village from an evil Caesar.

I find it gross and the movie maker definitely will not get any more money out of my pocket (he probably did get some, because practically all Finnish movies are tax funded).

Asem demonstrations

Does anybody know what the demonstrators were demanding? I've been trying to follow the news a little bit, but have thus far been unable to deduce anything particular that they would have demanded or opposed. I heard a radio interview of a Leftist Alliance (vasemmistoliitto) youth organization member who seemed to be one of the organizers and he didn't even mention Asem when he was asked about the reasons for the demonstrations. Instead, he said that they've had big demonstrations in other capital cities during EU presidency and that it is important to allow people to demonstrate.

I'm perplexed. Why are these people demonstrating and why will nobody explain the reasons? Isn't it traditional that you try to forward some political position with a demonstration? Does anybody know why?

Lies media told us, part II

It seems that International Red Cross is also an active participant in the ambulance fraud. This is truly worrysome. I've known for a long time not to trust the media, but if Red Cross starts deliberately lying about these things... it seems I may need to reconsider my attitude toward International Red Cross. Via Melanie

"Now the Red Cross has rebuked Australian Foreign Minister Downer for relying on an ‘unverified’ blog for his claim. As Little Green Footballs observes, this was the same Red Cross which — as LGF previously reported — once the ‘unverified’ blog started using those vanishing journalistic attributes such as eyesight and brain activity to state the overwhelmingly obvious, quietly removed from its website the high-resolution image of the ambulance that had allegedly been struck. For if these pictures were indeed a lie, then the Red Cross itself is squarely in the frame for disseminating it."

This attitude is outrageous, and I suggest you all let Red Cross know what you think of this kind of attitude. I will. At least with Red Cross, every one of you can help by telling them that we will not be donating money through them anymore, if they do not return the images for public inquiry and respond to the accusations.

World upside down

It used to be said that "The victors write the history". It isn't so anymore, and I doubt it has been so for a long time. Nowadays the truth seems to be, "those who write the history, win the war". Sadly, it is still the media, and not the blogosphere, which writes the history.

Military Strategy

I've been reading a little bit about military logistics lately and would like to do a lot more studying on military strategy. Sources writing on military strategy do not seem to be evading me; Amazon lists few interesting looking titles with search "military strategy".

I've read my Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, Machiavelli, and something about John Boyd and his ideas. Can anyone recommend any other good military strategists one should read? Strategists, mind you, not tacticians, nor operationalists. Though the latter two, well written, are welcome too.

Hesari osaa

Minulle tuli suurena yllätyksenä tänä aamuna Hesarin tuoreita lukiessani se, että Israelin ja Hizbollahin välillä on rauha. Selvästikin lähi-idässä on tapahtunut läpimurto, josta minulle ei oltu kerrottu. Itse kuvittelin, että konfliktissa oli saatu aikaan tulitauko.

Nimensä mukaisesti tulitauko on väliaikainen osapuolien yhteisesti sopima katko sotatoimissa (kts. wikipedia cease fire). Rauha sen sijaan tarkoittaa sodankäynnissä osapuolten yhteistä sopimusta lopettaa sota ja vihollisuudet. Sekä Libanon, että Syyria ovat sodassa Israelia vastaan - olleet jo vuosikymmeniä johtuen siitä, että Libanon ja Syyriä eivät ole olleet halukkaita tunnustamaan Israelia, saati sitten tekemään rauhaa sen kanssa, toisin kuin Jordania ja Egypti.

Sammakko kirjoitti samasta aiheesta muutama viikko takaperin.

Ihmetyttää kuinka epäpätevät ihmiset pääsevät kirjoittamaan uutisia valtakunnallisessa uutisorganisaatiossa.

Lies our press told us

Here.

Smoot-Hawley strikes back

Read this. Smoot-Hawley strikes back from the grave with a vengeance.

For those, who don't know what the heck Smoot-Hawley is, it is the law that cause the stock market crash in the Great Depression (most likely) and big part of why the Great Depression was so deep and long. With this one act, the wheels of international commerce came to a cringing halt and nothing was the same again.

Seuraava sota Libanonissa varmistui

Libanonin ja Israelin - tarkemmin sanottuna Hisbollahin ja Israelin välinen seuraava sota varmistui. YK on päättänyt, että Libanoniin lähetettäville sotilaille annetaan oikeus käyttää väkivaltaa vain itsepuolustukseen ja siviilien puolustamiseksi. Joukoilla ei siis edelleenkään ole oikeutta yrittää riisua Hisbollahia aseista, poistaa näiltä näiden raketinheittimiä, estää Hisbollahia hyödyntämästä YK-joukkojen asemia kilpenä raketti-iskuissa Israelia vastaan.

Päätös muuttaa tulitaukosopimuksen arvottomammaksi kuin paskapaperi. Kun Libanonin hallitus on jo ilmoittanut, että he eivät yritä riisua Hisbollahia aseista, eikä sillä ole mitään halua (tai kykyä) estää Hisbollahin asetoimituksia, tai iskuja Israeliin, on lopputuloksena tilanne, jossa Hisbollah jatkaa iskujaan Israeliin - tällä kertaa vain YK-joukot ovat entistä suurempi ihmiskilpi. Israel tulee taistelemaan Hisbollahia vastaan, kunhan iskut alkavat taas ja kaikella todennäköisyydellä YK-sotilaita kuolee lisää Hisbollahin ihmiskilpinä.

Seuraava kuuma sota Hisbollahin ja Israelin välillä alkanee pian. Olen pettynyt lopputulokseen, vaikkei YK:lta muuta pitäisikään odottaa.

Revenge!

No, not mine. Juha got his revenge by feeding me a large class of Riga
Balsam. It tastes awful and as he said, years ago, it's so awful you just
have to swallow it all with one gulp. Today, I have a hangover. Thank you,
Juha.

We also did an hour of Megazone yesterday. I was surprised that for the first half an hour game I could walk around with my knees bent really low and final scorecard said I was 5/16. Not bad, considering I never was any good in the game. During the second half, my legs started complaining, though not badly, but enough, and I ended up losing a few positions. Megazone was fun, might want to do that again later.

In the after sauna we talked about changing rules of Megazone and ended up with rules of splatterm, and our discussion also touched anarchists totally opposed to military service and then go to the woods to train how to over throw the government. Funnily, in this thing I agree with the anarchists - no, not the destroying government via revolution, but in disbanding the compulsory military service.

Yliopistotutkimuksen ongelmia

Eräs ongelma, johon itse olen moneen kertaan törmännyt kuuluu muna-kana
-ongelmien kategoriaan. Jotta projektirahoitusta saisi todennäköisemmin,
pitäisi rahoitushakemuksessa olla nimetyt tekijät projektille. Jotta uusia
ihmisiä voisi laittaa projektiin hommia tekemään, pitäisi heille voida
luvata palkkaa - mielellään vähintään vuodeksi. Rahoitusta ei saa, jos ei
ole tekijöitä ja tekijöitä ei saa, jos ei ole rahoitusta. Näppärää, eikö.

Järjestelmä toimii kohtuullisesti kaikille niille, jotka ovat jo päässeet
rahoitusputkeen, mutta jos haluaisi organisoida uutta projektia, johon
tulisi uusia tutkijoita, tilanne on huomattavasti vaikeampi.

Kaksi Amerikan virhettä Kuubassa

Johan Norberg on terävä, kuten tavallista ja kertoo, mitä Yhdysvaltain Kuuban politiikassa on vialla.

Warfare and civilians

Imagine at a time of war a soldier transporting supplies to fighting
forces, i.e. soldiers. How bad thing is it to kill a soldier transporting
the supplies, if you are fighting a war against the army he is serving?

Now what if the person transporting the supplies is not a soldier, but a
civilian? Does your answer to the question change? If it does change, if
it is worse (aka evil) to kill a civilian transporting supplies to
soldiers, then every fighting force fighting against good and decent
people should use civilians to transport supplies, because good and decent
people would not shoot civilians transporting the supplies.

What about supply depots, places where supplies are stored. If they are
located in a guarded separated territory controlled by the army and
surveilled by soldiers. Is it alright to destroy these supplies by
bombing? Is it wrong, if one is fighting a war against those people?

What then is the situation, if the people guarding the supplies are
civilians? Or does the situation change, if the supplies are stored in the
basements of multistore condos, where many civilian people live? Is it
worse, or evil to bomb an apartment building that is used as a supply
depot for army than to bomb a supply depot that is situated in a military
complex? Assuming the civilians know that their apartment building is used
as a military supply station? Assuming they don't?

If there is a difference and decent people should not do this in a state
of war, then everybody fighting against decent people is encouraged to
store all their munitions and supplies as close to the civilian population
and to do their utmost to force the conflict into where civilians are, or
to gain themselves the advantage of uninterrupted supply.

There are other reasons, why a military group might want to bring the war
to the areas where civilians will necessarily suffer and die, and they
deserve another post at another time.