More worlds about censorship and moderation.

https://vapaaverkkojulkaiseminen.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

In the world is two kinds of censorship. Another is governmental, and it has one benefit for the other censorship. That thing is this kind of censorship exists, and the line of that kind of authority is always similar. The use of that thing is crushing the opposition. That thing denies the publications of the opposition. And everybody who would not please the censors would be deleted in the public media.


But another censorship is the private censor, what is known as "moderator". The moderation has always explained the need of denying aggressive and illegal writings and other kind publications from the Internet. The moderation can also use for the advantage of the political or financial objectives. In the worst case, the political or financial actor would bribe the moderators of some social network for removing the competitor's websites and publications. That kind of thing could cause very big losses for that company. And I don't know have somebody got prosecutions about that kind of moderation.


Also, those moderators would operate on their own idea. There are a couple of cases, where the moderators have left the very bad looking messages in the public media. That has happened in the television text programs and the Internet. In the worst case, the friends of the moderators have allowed publishing their very frighten and racist messages, but those moderators have not reacted that thing. All their time left for deleting some ordinary person's messages.


This would be the very interesting thing because the moderator can be profiled by using the messages, what this person would let thru the censorship. And the messages, what this person would delete tells what kind of people does this person don't want to see. If there is only one person, whose messages would be deleted some law enforcement would read the papers of the moderator and the target. And then they come to visit to meet those persons, and they would find out, what is the reason for the hate. And if the censorship is targeted at some firm, the reason for that would be found in the money transfer to the bank accounts. If somebody would pay the moderation,  that would mean prosecution in the criminal prosecution process.

Työelämästä, johtajista sekä siitä, mitä kova vaatimustaso saa aikaan.

http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html
http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html
http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html
http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html
http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html
http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html
http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html
http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/tyoelamasta-johtajista-seka-siita-mita.html

What if the customer would take a part in the developing process?

Picture I

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/what-if-customer-would-take-part-in.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The co-development means that the deliverer or offender of the product would work together in the development process. The way of thinking that way would mean, that there would be no borders for the feedback, and sharing the information of the problems would be easier. The problems with the multi-level planning of the production are that the information of the problems would not enter to the ears of traditional companies. The co-developing is not the leaders or directors, this model happens in the workshops were the persons, who would take the part of the process can talk freely, and that would support the innovation.


Of course, there are limits in that kind of developing process, and one of them is financing. and of course in the company is the leaders. But in the developing process, the major role in the process is the network type working, where everybody has the chance to influent the process. The network-type information system allows free innovation, but of course, there is one thing, what must be noticed in this process.


The introvert persons must also take a part in the talking about the production, and those persons must be heard. Co-developing process is very interesting, and the answer to the question: why the company should choose this kind of method in the production and developing new products is, that in those models the developing team would get every information for their work, and the customer can also bring their own experts in this kind of team.


Co-developing means the real P2P model development for the products. This would revolutionize the borders between the manufacturer, deliver and the customer. And the feedback would be given during the process, that the development team can fix the errors during the process, and that would eliminate errors in the final product.


But the success of that project would need the good knowledge of the product. And of course, the chemistry between the members of the team must work very good. The persons who are working this way must have good social skills, and they must know, that every member of the team is important. No firms would hire persons, who would bring nothing in their projects, because those persons must get their salaries. And that's why they must have listened in the process. The people must realize that there would be no engineer, who would have nothing to do in the company.


Those people are expensive, and that's why there must be something to do, where the engineers are needed. In those projects must first collect every needed information, and then make the analysis of the need for the new product. And in this analysis must be seen, what is the trouble in the product, and could it replace by giving their new cores, if the product is the mobile telephone or some tool, what would need to use with gloves. That new cores or size would make them easier to hand with gloves. But there is no need to invent the wheel again. The old products might have many parts, what would operate in the new size product. And that would make the developing process cheaper and easier than starting to make brand new concepts.

Picture I

http://climbingblog.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/lightbulb-1875247__340.jpg

About innovation and how it can be destroyed

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Money is a good thing, but if you want to destroy innovation, you must do one bad decision. That is giving money to the team little bit too early. If a team is not ready for innovation and it inner pierces are not playing on the same team, the innovation in the team might die. If team members must race against together they will destroy all company or proto company. When the young person establishes new company they must realize that the investors are not angels. They don't give money for free. They want their investments back with heels. And when team collects new money, they must first make the product ready. After that, they can introduce that thing to investors.

The team is the most important thing in the innovation process, and a key element is that team members must trust each other. If they must be afraid to talk freely, without fear kickoffs, the team will work better than if somebody must afraid that he or she will kick off. If some member of the team will always yell to others and behaves like an asshole, that will poison all atmosphere of that team. The most vulnerable thing for team spirit is a person who plays something that he or she is not.

Another way to destroy innovation is that some member of the team will know that he or she will kick off in some day. When we remember that team spirit is very important for innovation, what kind of motivation will have a member who is totally out of the team? Does that person gives his or her full attention and does he or she deliver own ideas to others. I think that answer is “no", and that person probably does not even talk to other personnel of the group. Most of that person’s time goes with making new CV and job application for next job interview. That will not rise that kind of workers work spirit.

But why giving money too early makes bad things for innovation? When somebody is giving money for something that makes target society a firm. In the firm innovation is not free, because customers want profits. And if the product is not ready, that will cause stress for the members of a team. And if the customer or business angel gives money will that person cause race situation inside that group, because everybody wants money and profits from their product. When somebody wants to invest money to some company or product he or she wants to get outcomes from his or her investment.

So when business angel wants 20% profit that person wants 1,20 euros for every euro what that person gives to the company. And that makes stress to the team because they must have something to show on deadline. And that "something" must be something, what gives money to that person. If money doesn't come, that "angel" will get the team to court and begins debt collection, and that is a very unhappy situation for everybody.

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi

Miksi joku ihminen ylivelkaantuu? Odottaako hän kenties lainaa hakiessaan saavansa jonkun yllättävän summan rahaa jostain?

Aina välillä vastaan tulee tapauksia, missä ihminen on ylivelkaantunut ikään kuin tyhmien lainojen takia. Ja silloin tietenkin pitää kysyä sellainen kysymys, että miten sellaiselle ihmiselle, joka ei edes ulkonäöllisesti vakuuta myönnetään lainoja? Eli mitä esimerkiksi lainan myöntäjä tai takaaja oikeastaan on ajatellut, kun hän on lähtenyt takaamaan tai myöntämään lainaa henkilölle, joka haisee jo lainan hakuvaiheessa viinalle ja on pukeutunut johonkin likaiseen vaatekertaan, joka on ilmeisesti ollut pitkään pesun tarpeessa. Kun tuollainen ilmiselvä laitapuolen kulkija astuu pankkiin, niin silloin pitäisi kyllä vakuudet selvittää erittäin huolellisesti, ja samalla myös ottaa henkilön silloinen tilanne huomioon.

Eli tällaisessa tapauksessa missä ilmiselvästi päihteiden väärinkäyttäjä hakee lainaa, pitäisi vastauksen olla ehdottomasti kielteinen, koska silloin tietenkin on suuri vaara siitä, että laina jää hoitamatta. Kuitenkin joissakin tapauksissa aivan selvästi normaalissa elämäntilanteessa oleva ihminen hakee suurta luottoa jotain liiketoimia varten, ja sitten käy kuten jossain huonossa elokuvassa, eli tuolta henkilöltä lähtee sitten kaikki alta. Noissa tapauksissa missä raitis ihminen hakee luottoa, ja sitten hän ei sitä kykene hoitamaan on tilanne hiukan mutkikkaampi kuin jonkun alkoholistin kohdalla. Alkoholisti kykenee aina väittämään hakevansa lainaa viinaan, ja että siinä ryhmässä tyhmyys tiivistyy.

Mutta kun normaali ihminen sitten tekee sellaisen tempun, että hän ottaa suuren luoton, ja sitten ei sitä voi maksaa, niin silloin kyllä pitää kysyä, että odottiko tuo henkilö sitten jostain jotain, mikä toisi hänelle suuria tuloja? Eli haettiinko tuota luottoa sitten jotain liiketoimia varten, jotka menivät pieleen, ja sitten tuo onneton jää yksin vastaamaan kaikesta? Ja oliko tuo velka tehty kommandiittiyhtiön kautta. Kommandiittiyhtiö on sellainen yhtiömuoto, missä on kaksi vastuunalaista yhtiömiestä ja yksi äänetön yhtiömies, joka ei vastaa omaisuudellaan tuon yhtiön tekemistä tappioista.

Kommandiitti- ja avoin yhtiö ovat sellaisia, että niissä vastuunalaiset yhtiömiehet joutuvat omalla omaisuudellaan vastuussa yhtiöön tekemistä veloista, ja noista yhtiömuodoista varoitetaan jatkuvasti, koska jos toinen noista vastuullisista yhtiömiehistä sitten osoittautuu holtittomaksi, niin toinen voi joutua hänen tekemiensä tappioiden maksumieheksi. Mutta kommandiitti-yhtiöissä piilee hyvin vakava vaara, mistä ei juuri koskaan puhuta julkisuudessa. Nimittäin tämä liittyy siihen, että kommandiittiyhtiön äänetön yhtiömies velkoo jompaa kumpaa tai kumpaakin vastuunalaista yhtiömiestä henkilökohtaisen lainan kautta. Eli silloin tietenkin tuo äänetön yhtiömies on saattanut rahoittaa toisen kommandiittiin tulevan vastuunalaisen yhtiömiehen edellisen toiminimen toimintaa, ja sitten hän alkaa velkoa tätä, kun kommandiitti on perustettu.

Tuolloin saattaa olla niin, että hän muuttuu hyväntekijästä hyvin ikäväksi tutuksi, jolloin hän saattaa sitten henkilökohtaisen takauksen kautta muuttua kommandiittiyhtiön todelliseksi määräysvallan käyttäjäksi, ja kun hän on tullut takaamaan näiden onnettomien tekemiä lainoja, niin silloin hän voi pakottaa näitä kahta henkilöä tottelemaan itseään, jolloin tuloksena voi olla lainojen kierre, josta ei sitten pääse millään tavalla eroon. Tai tietenkin henkilökohtaisen ulosoton,  konkurssin sekä luottotietojen menetyksen kautta voi ihminen sitten päästä eroon tuosta asiasta, mutta mitään muuta keinoa ei ole kuin maksaa tuolle velkojalle sen mitä hän haluaa. Ja jos  hän haluaa rahoilleen 20% koron, niin velottavan osapuolen on annettava hänelle 1,20 euroa jokaista saamaansa euroa kohti.