About writing and personal freedoms

Mediaeval writer

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/about-writing-and-personal-freedoms.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

It would be very tough to make every writing by using the scientific methodology. Sometimes people tell, that the sources of the texts are badly marked, or something that people write is actually the hoax. But when we are thinking about sources, are the museums the sources, what can be thought as trustable. Is the Museum of technology in Vienna the source, what can be trusted? If we are thinking about the proofs of the things, we must say, that when we are looking at the crop images, we are normally mean the complicated pictures, what are made by pushing the crop to the state where the crop has been flattened. Making those images is quite easy.


There are three ways to make them with modern technology.  The first one is using the quadrocopter and GPS, and if the nano helicopter is equipped with the powerful compressor, what would blow the water or hydrocarbon to crop, it would make the image quite easily. But if the used stuff were water, the crop would be wet, and hydrocarbon is actually expensive. Another way is to use two helicopters, where another flies higher, and then the lower one would make the pictures. The controller of the lower helicopter must be sharp, that the picture would be, what this person wants.


The third one would need technology, what is very difficult to get. It is to use the Schwarm of the nano- or robot bugs, what are acting as one entirety. This would need complicated technology and that system is difficult to create because there are many quadrocopters, what must be paid. The quadrocopters would be equipped with RFID component, and the central computer would control them with multi-channel radio, what gives every part of the swarm individual orders. Or if the maker would have the "wise drones", that swarm can operate independently. It would be enough that one particle of the group of the robots would get the orders, what to do, and then it would send the orders to other members of the swarm. But those drones are actually difficult to buy because they are sometimes military secret. And of course, the prize of those drones is very high. And that's why I must ask "why somebody would want to do that?" Are those crop pictures really made for fun, or are those pictures result for some kind of control tests, where were tested the capacities and controls of drone swarms?


If we are thinking about image manipulation or something like that, we might say that the faker of the image is somebody else than us. Then somebody writes something, must this person give room for personal opinions and thoughts. Personal thinking is not a crime, and also bringing own personality in the text is also allowed, and when we are thinking about the newspapers or some other media, there is of course sometimes need to release the space in the magazines for something very important thing.


The thing is the big international meeting in our country, and then is the best way to keep the mouth shut up because there are more important things to think that some "Sentinel family". There is better that nobody says against the official mention, and the comments can be let to official reporters.  But I don't understand what those newspapers write in the rest of the year. And if some writings have no meanings, why in the newspapers are some writings against the writers, who would write something against the political elite. When are we thinking about the spam, who cares about it? If some writing is meanless, why giving the comments against it?


When we are looking at the writings, many writers would connect them in the very tight role, and that makes writing very hard. Looking for sources all the time makes writing very difficult, and this process should be easy and light. When somebody makes the text,  this writer can make some own worlds.  Here we should say "don't be so serious Sam", then I would write something about Pharaohs, we can say almost everything about those people. I haven't met any Pharaoh in my life, and I must confess, that the use of own imagination we can fill the holes of our knowledge.


Also, Mika Waltari probably didn't meet Akhnaten or doctor Sinuhe in his life. He must use the imagination in his famous book "Sinuhe", that this writer wrote in Istanbul. Here we must think something very interesting things in history, what are connecting to the finding of the grave of Tutankhamun. The man, who was working in the field was Howard Carter, as you probably have read in the schools.  Of course is quite suspicious that Carter found the grave in the last day when the financial support, what this man got from Carvarnor was ending. And here I must ask again "how long the hemp rope would stand in the desert?". Does that material stand 2000 years in the air?


And if Carter was looking for that grave with the theodolite, how this grave could be found? The grave KV-62 is in the canyon, and it was not visible. So were there some texts, where were the place of that remarkable cave? And were somebody visited there before Carter?. When we are thinking about the books of Waltari, they are very interesting. This man was the very sophisticated writer, and he wrote many novels from history to crime. And all his characters were actually fiction. He has used the historical persons with fictional characters, but nobody knows actually, what kind of man was Akhenaten.


The name would not make the character real, and when we are thinking about the position of fictional character Sinuhe in that book that doctor was placed in the highest places in the Egyptian society. And sometimes I have thought, that some writer like Clive Cussler could make the novel, where Sinuhe could move to America by using the reed boat. Or maybe Akhenaten had bad relationships with his family, and they did not send the bounty hunters after this doctor. Who knows what were the ideas of Waltari, when he wrote that character.

I Want to believe...

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When some people are against something, they will be tuned to find only the negative things about some things. Those people will look for the things what supports their own opinion for any questions about the things. Those people would write only the crimes, what are made by foreigners, and if we are talking about the western subway line in the Finnish capital. Helsinki, would some people write, that the users of this line will transfer to use their own cars.


The resistance of the western metro line was quite noisy in the public media and the journalists wrote that some people got 30 minutes longer work trip, because the straight bus lines between the cities were disbanded. And after that, the looking for the mistakes were continued, and the technical problems have raised in the front of the public eye. There was news, that even 10 years old youngsters have spent all day in the subway, what is not accomplished yet.


So what is the reason for the resistance of this new traffic line? The reason is that some people might have the contract with bus companies, that they will get some benefits from those companies, and when we are talking about the use of the private cars in the capital of Finland, we must realize, that there are no parking areas for the private cars, and the parking bills are very high. And I have seen, that the same kind of texts was been in many newspapers. So is the writer same person every time? The used phrases and linguistic arguments are the same kinds of every press stories. And one thing what connects those texts is the support of private cars are mentioned bt phrase "Transfer to use the private car".

Do you want to be famous?

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When we are talking about famous people, we will normally think that people are born as famous. That is not true. Or of course, there are a very famous people, who are very popular and famous, because they are born in the famous families. But when we are talking about social media or something like that, we can say that many people are more famous as they believe, and if somebody wants to say that social media has no effect, I must say those people are wrong.


If some blogger or whatever they are doesn't mean anything, why those people who so hate those people must interview the persons like the commander in chief of the military forces. When are we talking about persons who mean nothing, why we see sometimes very aggressive writing against those people? When people are living in the modern world they must understand that we all have opinions, and when I'm writing something, I must not accept those writings by my daddy.


But when we are talking about some journalistic "pranks", we will see in some comments or in some kind of published news the little things, what makes us believe that those journalists use some "dirty tricks" when they are making their stories. In those stories was seen, that those people have got some passwords in their hands, what is used in some employment services. And do you know that is a crime? And the memberships of the sex clubs and another kind of that societies are normally confidential if those societies say that they are confidential.


And also salmonella and AIDS- tests are confidential if some club member has been given those papers to the media, and that test is actually free. When we are talking about taking care and sense of responsibility about the people, we must say, that many people make love in the real life.  That is what the normal people do together. Also, the information of the incompetent person is confidential. So in the real world, the delivering that kind of information will sometimes cause the prosecution process. If somebody misunderstands that their neighbor is the person, who is incompetent, that would cause the very big refund, when that makes trouble for that person's businesses.


But when we are writing something, it doesn't mean that somebody must always cry, when those people are writing their texts. There is a little thing, what the media makers usually didn't see before social media. That was the texts where reporters and other journalists were criticized. They were the persons, who wrote what they wanted, and if some things were not accessible for those people, the things just changed for satisfying. And many journalists used the term "many people" in their stories, what represented only single person's opinion of those things. That's why we must say, that social media has been changing the role of media forever.