They released "Sim City" for the iPhone. I just installed it yesterday, and yes, it seems to be the real deal!
This is the first time I wish that I had longer commute...
I'm not dead. Really
It's been a while since i said more than two words here. It's just that... I haven't had anything that interesting to say. I don't live THAT interesting life. But I don't really mind it that much. As the Chinese curse says: "may you live in interesting times". Well, I live pretty sedate life. I'm the kind of guy who dreams of going home after busy workday, putting some fire in the fireplace (if I had one that is), grabbing a good book, and enjoying a quiet, stress-free evening. That's my idea of paradise. Crackling fire and slowly-ticking clock, that is what I want.
The winter I reported about in my previous post has been so-so. We had loads of snow, then it all melted away. Yesterday we got more snow, and it hasn't melted so far. I'm not the biggest fan in the world when snow is concerned, but I dislike black winter even more. There's no sunlight, and the fact that the ground is black just makes everything more miserable. Snow might be cold and wet, but at least it looks pretty and it lights up the surroundings.
I still wish it was summer, though.
The winter I reported about in my previous post has been so-so. We had loads of snow, then it all melted away. Yesterday we got more snow, and it hasn't melted so far. I'm not the biggest fan in the world when snow is concerned, but I dislike black winter even more. There's no sunlight, and the fact that the ground is black just makes everything more miserable. Snow might be cold and wet, but at least it looks pretty and it lights up the surroundings.
I still wish it was summer, though.
There are no shades of gray
I live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. I have a car, a nice home, computers, gizmos and all the other things that define "modern western lifestyle". And I do like that lifestyle.
But on the other hand there is part in me that dreams of giving all that up. That dreams of simple life far away from the crowded cities.
Few months ago I saw a story on TV about this Norwegian man, who quit his job, and moved to a remote location in northern Norway. He built himself a house that was similar to the old Viking-dwellings. He had no electricity (well, he did have a generator for cases when he absolutely needed electricity). And he didn't have any clocks. It was peaceful, stress-free existence.
I could see myself doing something like that. But the thing is that it's the two extremes that appeal to me, the things in between do not seem appealing at all.
I couldn't really see myself making _some_ cutbacks to my life. If I do "cut back", then it needs to be all the way. Either I live this lifestyle, or I live the complete opposite lifestyle. But no half-hearted attempts somewhere in between.
I guess that I see the middle ground as combining the worst of the two extremes. If I make some cutbacks, I sacrifice on the material wealth, but I don't really gain that much in the lifestyle. I would still have to go to work, and it return I would have less of the modern luxuries. So it has to be all or nothing.
But on the other hand there is part in me that dreams of giving all that up. That dreams of simple life far away from the crowded cities.
Few months ago I saw a story on TV about this Norwegian man, who quit his job, and moved to a remote location in northern Norway. He built himself a house that was similar to the old Viking-dwellings. He had no electricity (well, he did have a generator for cases when he absolutely needed electricity). And he didn't have any clocks. It was peaceful, stress-free existence.
I could see myself doing something like that. But the thing is that it's the two extremes that appeal to me, the things in between do not seem appealing at all.
I couldn't really see myself making _some_ cutbacks to my life. If I do "cut back", then it needs to be all the way. Either I live this lifestyle, or I live the complete opposite lifestyle. But no half-hearted attempts somewhere in between.
I guess that I see the middle ground as combining the worst of the two extremes. If I make some cutbacks, I sacrifice on the material wealth, but I don't really gain that much in the lifestyle. I would still have to go to work, and it return I would have less of the modern luxuries. So it has to be all or nothing.
When the Wind Blows
I just noticed that the "When the Wind Blows" is on youtube. It's the anumation from the eighties about an elderly couple and nuclear war. It's based on a graphic novel of the same name.
It's just so sad and touching. No happy ending, no joy, no hope.
It's just so sad and touching. No happy ending, no joy, no hope.
Green is the color of money
The Greens in the Helsinki metropolitan area released their proposal for congestion-charges for the city. I wont comment on the actual idea of congestion-charges, but I DO want to comment on their proposal, which is downright stupid.
The charge works as you might expect: you need to pay if you drive to the metro-area. You can either pay per kilometer, or you can buy a monthly "pass". If you buy that monthly pass, you also get a 30-day ticket for the mass-transport in the metro-area. Which is a good idea.
Everything else about their suggestion sucks though.
Their idea is to basically charge money from commuters who drive to the metro-area (Metro-area in this case is the cities of Espoo, Vantaa and Helsinki) from the surrounding counties. Also, if you drive inside the metropolitan area and cross a city-limit (like, driving from Helsinki to Espoo) you need to pay.
Well, what's the problem here? Simple: if you just drive inside one city (like, inside Helsinki), you do not need to pay one dime extra.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's the idea behind all this. Fact is that further away from the metro-area you are, the less viable alternative mass-transit is. And now those who live outside the metro-area would be punished because they commute to the metro-area. And while they are punished, the people inside metro-area (to whom mass-transit IS a viable alternative) are not encouraged to use mass-transit. People who live in Helsinki can keep on driving inside Helsinki, without having to pay one cent extra. Even if they had a tram/bus/metro 50 meters from their home. People outside metro-area who have no other alternative but to use their car, are expected to pay more.
I commute by train, since my workplace is right in the downtown of Helsinki. The Mrs.'s workplace is not in the downtown, so she carpools with her father. The reason for that is that there is not one mass-transit connection between our home and the place she works. Not one.
The Greens' proposal would make it quite a bit more expensive for her (and her father) to go to work. And the mass-transit-ticket they would get in return would not even be useful for her, since it's not valid here. We would have to live closer to Helsinki to be able to use it.
Her only "viable" alternative is to get a 30-days train-ticket (costs 106 euros/month) and in addition, a 30-day bus-ticket from Helsinki to Espoo (where she works, costs 114e/month). It would cost her 220e/month just to go to work. Daily commute would be 60-90 minutes in one direction. So she would spend 2-3 hours a day commuting, and she would pay 220e for the pleasure.
I have mailed two Green politicians about this (one of them my representative in the parliament), but I have received no reply.
why did Greens suggest something like this? Why aren't they suggesting new fares for people who live in Helsinki (or Espoo, or Vantaa), but still use their own car? I guess the reason is simple: This was one of their themes in the communal-elections. And it's not politically smart to tell the voters "if you vote us, we will make you pay more". No, what they said was basically "If you vote us, we will make these other people pay more". People outside the metro-area would be asked to pay more, but those people do not vote in the metro-area communal elections.
The charge works as you might expect: you need to pay if you drive to the metro-area. You can either pay per kilometer, or you can buy a monthly "pass". If you buy that monthly pass, you also get a 30-day ticket for the mass-transport in the metro-area. Which is a good idea.
Everything else about their suggestion sucks though.
Their idea is to basically charge money from commuters who drive to the metro-area (Metro-area in this case is the cities of Espoo, Vantaa and Helsinki) from the surrounding counties. Also, if you drive inside the metropolitan area and cross a city-limit (like, driving from Helsinki to Espoo) you need to pay.
Well, what's the problem here? Simple: if you just drive inside one city (like, inside Helsinki), you do not need to pay one dime extra.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's the idea behind all this. Fact is that further away from the metro-area you are, the less viable alternative mass-transit is. And now those who live outside the metro-area would be punished because they commute to the metro-area. And while they are punished, the people inside metro-area (to whom mass-transit IS a viable alternative) are not encouraged to use mass-transit. People who live in Helsinki can keep on driving inside Helsinki, without having to pay one cent extra. Even if they had a tram/bus/metro 50 meters from their home. People outside metro-area who have no other alternative but to use their car, are expected to pay more.
I commute by train, since my workplace is right in the downtown of Helsinki. The Mrs.'s workplace is not in the downtown, so she carpools with her father. The reason for that is that there is not one mass-transit connection between our home and the place she works. Not one.
The Greens' proposal would make it quite a bit more expensive for her (and her father) to go to work. And the mass-transit-ticket they would get in return would not even be useful for her, since it's not valid here. We would have to live closer to Helsinki to be able to use it.
Her only "viable" alternative is to get a 30-days train-ticket (costs 106 euros/month) and in addition, a 30-day bus-ticket from Helsinki to Espoo (where she works, costs 114e/month). It would cost her 220e/month just to go to work. Daily commute would be 60-90 minutes in one direction. So she would spend 2-3 hours a day commuting, and she would pay 220e for the pleasure.
I have mailed two Green politicians about this (one of them my representative in the parliament), but I have received no reply.
why did Greens suggest something like this? Why aren't they suggesting new fares for people who live in Helsinki (or Espoo, or Vantaa), but still use their own car? I guess the reason is simple: This was one of their themes in the communal-elections. And it's not politically smart to tell the voters "if you vote us, we will make you pay more". No, what they said was basically "If you vote us, we will make these other people pay more". People outside the metro-area would be asked to pay more, but those people do not vote in the metro-area communal elections.
A conversation with the Mrs.
Me: Honey, do you remember that domestic period-movie you wanted to go see few months ago, but we never did?
Her: Yeah....
Me: Well, there's another domestic period-piece in the movies at this very moment. Would you like to go see it?
Her: Well....
Me: It's tagline is "Wash your sins". How about it?
Her: ...You are weird, you are so weird!
Needless to say, we didn't go see that one...
Her: Yeah....
Me: Well, there's another domestic period-piece in the movies at this very moment. Would you like to go see it?
Her: Well....
Me: It's tagline is "Wash your sins". How about it?
Her: ...You are weird, you are so weird!
Needless to say, we didn't go see that one...