CharlesSwann

Not sure how many Thais read The Nation. Does this kind article ever reach ordinary Thais in Thai newspapers?

Seems that some people are going to miss having NK as an enemy. One might suppose that is simple-minded paranoia and insecurity, but there's the creeping sense that they have got high all these years on the thrill of nuclear threat and sense of moral superiority that the conflict they manufactured for that purpose gave them. They are dangerous fools and warmongers.

NK developed nukes because it felt threatened. Remove the threat and you won't hear a peep out of them, especially now that their nuclear programme is finished. Provoke if you want conflict, don't if you want peace. It's that simple. Those of us with a grasp of psychology have been saying for years that insecurity is the only reason behind NK aggression. War games are fatal for peace and are therefore bad for security. Here is an opportunity not to go back to square one.

You have to admit, it's been a good show. Two hilarious cartoon characters.

NK has already demolished its nuclear test site which was apparently wrecked after the last test so either they now want to calm things down for a few years while they secretly redevelop it, or they have given up the nuclear confrontation ploy altogether on account of the cost.

If the US/SK keep up with their inflammatory war games, NK will redevelop nukes. If not, it's peace in our time.

In any case, I think we should keep Kim in place for amusement value.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What on earth gives you the idea that any western country would want to take them over again? Our leaders would have to be insane to do so, IMO.

Don't know about the others, but for the British, it's what we do.

Sundowner on the verandah, old chap, eh what?

Seriously, there would be economic benefits both ways. And how else to prevent all this migration which is becoming like osmosis?

Africa is a failed continent. Few of those nations were ready for independence, just as they never had the social organisation to admit them to the modern world. They should swallow their pride and invite back their former colonial masters to run the place until such time as they can do so themselves.

Trump says what he thinks, so is a good person to be friends with. Presumably Kim thought it was an opportunity for genuine friendship - especially as his nuclear programme has apparently folded.

As with Mao-Nixon, I can see some easing of tension, though no substantive change.

If Trump goes in talking about missiles the meeting will be pointless.

Cultural rapprochement is the thing. Trump should offer to build and pay for a Disneyland in N. Korea. Once they get a taste of that, the N. Koreans will sweep away the Kims in their craving for McDonalds, denim jeans, rock music, and all the other irresisitible trappings of western culture.

Why is it always the frickin UK?

I paid a touristic visit to the Big Buddha in Hong Kong a few days ago and there was a hippy dude sitting in the lotus position apparently in a trance and oblivious to the crowds thronging crowds about him. Apart from the fact that I found this lack of consciousness in a public place vaguely unsettling, it got me thinking.

I always assumed enlightment equated with truth, but I'm coming to think that it's merely serenity - a refuge, which involves a flight - and (correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm no Buddhist) the process involves the annihilation of the consciousness.

To my mind, enlightenment should not be the annihilation of consciousness but the very opposite - the attainment of a rational system of thought that produces the most objective truth. That requires consciousness. It seems to me that the greater consciousness you can sustain, the shriller the truth. This is not calming, but searing and barely sustainable. In this scheme, enlightment is not serenity, but clarity. The achievement is in the objectivity of the truth achieved. Of course, there is some serenity in the satisfaction of having found a workable 'system of thought', but at no point does it involve the annihation of consciousness.

Am I inventing a new religion here, or have I always misunderstood 'enlightenment'?

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

To take what you assert seriously one would have to posit that human beings have a soul/mind independent of the body. That the brain is not responsible for emotion and thought, or if it is, it is the only bodily  organ not subject to metabolic malfunction. Good luck with that.

There are a huge number of studies arrayed against you and, oddly enough, in your own unreflective way, you evoke some of them by referring to "genetics."

Of course physiology is at the root of cognition, but I'm against listing every little deviation from the norm as a disorder in DMS-5. I'm with Thomas Szasz who considered that many so-called psychological 'disorders' are just emotionally manipulative sympathy-seeking and, for the good of society, shouldn't be reinforced. Society is definitely getting frailer in this regard and it's no suprise that suicides are increasing.

I would say that most suicidal behaviour can be explained by fairly superficial, proximate, 'life-experience' causes (albeit with biological preconditions) rather than deep-rooted physiological causes. I don't class depression as a disorder at all, but a normal and rational response to frustration. And there's no point treating it with pills, which is only sweeping the problem under the carpet. The only solution is life-change, and the method is a broader perspective, and the key to the latter is to stop thinking of yourself as the centre of the universe. In fact, that is the key not only to wisdom on any topic, but fairly equates to 'enlightenment'. Again, speaking from experience.

10 hours ago, Credo said:

Automation has it's limits.   All kinds of things can be programmed into a computer for a plane and radar can detect things close.   They also have eyes on the ground that are helping.  Where people are needed is when something unexpected happens and happens quickly.   So, the pilot still needs to be very well trained.   

 

Cars have a whole different group of parameters to deal with.   

The technology is not there yet, of course, I'm talking about future direction. 

Human reactions vary from person to person. That's where human error lies. All that can be avoided by sophisticated enough modelling. Someone on the ground could still control the plane, just as in a flight simulator. No need to have a bloke up in the air (with a migraine or pending divorce?) flying the plane at all.

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"It would be far easier" says poster. That's sorted, then.

I'm visionary.?

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What some people don't seem to get is that severe depression is generally the product of a malfunctioning organ:  the brain. If you knew someone with terminal cancer would you say, "I wonder how they would get by if they had my life?". 

 

Nonsense. Depression is the result of frustration pure and simple, a thwarting of goals that produces a sense of hopelessness. Most people kill themselves because of temporary misery not because of a physical brain disorder. If you're looking for ultimate causes, it's a combination of genetics, bad luck and IMO evolutionary design that wants to weed out unsuccesful individuals from the gene pool.

Life can undoubtedly become an unbearable ordeal for anyone, but I say again, some depressives have less excuse to be depressed - they are stuck in a blinkered mindset and self-obsession. Suicide to me looks like a kind of inverted narcissism - spoken by someone who has contemplated suicide almost every day since the age of 10. I can tell you - the trick for survival is to take a broad enough perspective.

15 hours ago, Cherjam said:

Depression doesn't care about privilege or age

True, but some people have better excuse than others. Affluent, talented, successful people have less excuse. I wonder how they would get by if they had my life?

Dave Lee Travis?

This stuff seems to have come a long way from the old 'non doctor' from the back pages of 1970s Men Only.

Still, if you need any of this stuff you're just not doing it right.

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Perhaps make autonomous cars work first, then try aircraft...

 

With planes, it would be far easier as the sky is relatively empty, and as I understand it, flying is already fairly automated.

Perhaps I should sell this idea to Elon Musk.

2 hours ago, ozfarang said:

Yes, and how many people would step onto an aircraft with no pilots? Very few I would think. It will be a long time before autonomous civil jets take to the skies.

 

No comercial jet can take autonomously , needs pilot input. Autoland requires no human input until slowed to taxi speed.

 

You wouldn't believe what could go wrong in flight, MUCH more than you think.

 

CS are you a pilot?

Agree it's not just a question of avoiding hitting things, but I don't see any problem. It's pure physics and best to take the human element out of it. Technology can provide every kind of feedback on conditions, and adjustments to controls made accordingly. Pretty inevitable for the future though I should think.

People will use automous planes once their safety record is proven. I would certainly not mind. In fact, I object now that my flights are currently subject to human error and the vaguaries of whether the pilot is having a bad day. What happens if both pilots had a heart attack/stroke during the flight?

I'm not a pilot. Of course pilots would be against autonomous planes to protect their jobs. They would be replaced by monitors/controllers on the ground. Sounds good to me.

How about autonomous self-driving planes? Or planes operated remotely from the ground, which would solve the problems of hijackings, rogue pilots and pilot fatalities? Ruling out human error would make flying a lot safer.

There's only so many things that can go wrong on a flight and given that flying relies hugely on technology already it shouldn't be too big a leap. How much more difficult could it be than self-driving cars?

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

When I mention normal course of events I'm talking about governments who have clear policy and legislation regards the processing of asylum seekers.

 

Media outlets such as the BBC have clear written policy on why they use the term "migrant' as opposed to refugee or asylum seeker. So far as I know Western governments have very clear definitions documented in policy and legislation, as does the UN, as to migrant, asylum seeker or refugee. Unfortunately individuals, groups and governments are deliberately muddling the waters, primarily so called nationalists to the right of center, in their aim to facilitate authoritarian regimes.

Media outlets may disingenuously claim impartiality, but the simple existence of an article, or the choice of a certain picture can put sufficient political spin on a topic, as you probably well know.

I see no evidence that western governments have any clear and consistent grasp of either their existing immigration policies or the consequences of the excessive immigration that has resulted from those policies. I see no grasp whatsover of an optimum level of immigration (I suggest 5% max. of any population). The waters here are definitely muddied most by bleeding heart humanitarians who can't bear to see anybody in tears, and by politicians who use immigration to deliver the growth that keeps them in power, and by immigrants themselves who are salving their own sense of guilt.

You seem to think that people adopt a position on the left-right spectrum and then tailor all their beliefs and their actions in accordance with that position - that they have one grain of an opinion and the rest is prejudice. That's desperately defensive. You know that all the convincing rational arguments on curbing excessive immigration are coming from the right. We don't hear any arguments at all in favour of excessive immigration coming from the left - in fact the left has no idea of the concept of excessive. If you have any such arguments, please enlighten us.

Just now, VBF said:

If the former, still no excuse, if the latter, the landlord deserves to be "outed" 

Far more likely the former. In any case, I certainly don't believe this is just slovenly habits - though everyone else on this thread has fallen for it.

Judging by the way it is scattered, they obviously trashed the room deliberately - presumably after an argument with the landlord. Or else the landlord did it himself after the argument for the sake of some anti-Chinese publicity.

Former legend?