Malaysia’s F1 entry:
Where Honda and now BMW are beating a hasty retreat from F1, Malaysia’s government is backing a team to compete.
It is a profligate waste of money that is a possible avenue for pilferage that reflects on the recklessness, poor judgement and priorities of those at the helm of the country.
Maybe Malaysia knows better than Honda and BMW or they are greater fools wasting the nation's resources that can be put to more productive use.
Truth is more dangerous than fiction:
It reflects false perception that will end in insanity for the person.
Truth is not dangerous except that you are fearful to protect your life here by embracing falsity to get along.
Fiction is falsity is always finally fatal because it poisons the mind to become insane.
TRUTH ITSELF IS NEVER DANGEROUS BUT SANE AND COMPLETE PEACE OF MIND, THE BUDDHA SAID TRUTH IS THE HIGHEST OF SAVORS, IT IS THE ENEMIES OF TRUTH THAT MAKE IT DANGEROUS. FICTION IS NOT ONLY ALWAYS DANGEROUS, IT IS THE PATH TO CERTAIN FUTURE INSANITY.
People are difficult if not impossible to rehabilitate, the Buddha said you have shed your own blood greater than the four great oceans and yet people are unrepentant, deluded perceiving they are right and good when they are the opposite, harming themselves and others.
It is impossible that Hisham knows what he is talking about but driven by emotion or force (sadness in this case), he is moved to speak in useless regret, trying to stir sadness and conflict in others as to what might have been.
UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, YOU ARE WISE TO REMAIN SILENT. IT IS UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE NORDIN CAN BE REFORMED, AS THE BUDDHA SAID DIFFERENT BEINGS HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND THERE ARE LIMITS AS TO HOW MUCH THEY CAN BE CHANGED IF POSSIBLE AND SO IF YOU ARE SPEAKING WISHFULLY OUT OF SADNESS, YOU ARE COURTING INSANITY AND CREATING KARMA FOR ADVOCATING REGRET AND DOUBT IN OTHERS AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
Fussiness is about force never reason:
Many people are annoyed by the fussiness of others but they don’t realize they themselves too are fussy (fastidious) in different ways and it is always suffering, robotic controlled torment that will end in insanity.
Fussiness is intolerance for things and ways things are done that deviate from a narrow even rigid perception of what is correct or good or the proper way of doing or saying something. Thus the fussy person likes to do particular things in a particular way and get upset or angry or disliking if it departs from that way, he is intolerant of others’ different ways of doing or saying things.
Thus fussiness is based on force, on attraction for a particular personal way of saying or doing something in a rigid robotic rehashed way and intolerant or dislike for ways that differ.
Insulting Islam? Please:
The answer to the question is not ‘please’ but yes or no and so it is an inappropriate reply that is cultivating false logic for yourself and others.
By saying ‘please’ you are sort of begging others, indicating your mental force is stirred to like what you disliked. Why should your mental force be stirred by the accusation. The relevant reply is whether the accusation is with merit or not.
“PLEASE” IS A STYLISH FALSE EMOTIONAL ANSWER TO A QUESTION THAT PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD ACCEPT AS VALID WHEN IT IS FALSE.
Your shopping trolley knows what you want
Advertising will be delivered directly to supermarket trolleys based on a shopper's in-store behaviour and purchasing history.
Just because a chip and computers keep track of your past purchases and deliver ‘appropriate’ advertisement does not mean your trolley knows what you want.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT ANY TROLLEY CAN KNOW WHAT YOU WANT AND IT IS PRACTICING FALSE PERCEPTION (THAT A TROLLEY CAN KNOW) FOR THE SAKE OF EXAGGERATION THAT WILL END IN INSANITY TO SAY FALSELY TO OTHERS ‘YOUR TROLLEY KNOWS WHAT YOU WANT’.
Angry in a polite way:
Whenever a person says “please” to an accusation eg if he insulted Islam, he is indicating his anger is stirred and he is trying to be polite or pretentious to say ‘please’ when he is actually displeased.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THE AVOWED MUSLIM PERSON ACCUSED OF INSULTING ISLAM CAN BE PLEASED AS HE PROFESSED BUT IT IS THE OPPOSITE, HE IS DISPLEASED OR UPSET AND THEREFORE HE IS BEING PRETENTIOUSLY POLITE OR LYING AND IT IS AN IRRATIONAL FORCE DRIVEN ANSWER. THE RATIONAL ANSWER IS EITHER YES OR NO.
What is he doing?
He is forcing himself to wave in a way that is characteristic of him and different from others that can only be because it is impersonally rehashed again and again to meet demands of the occasion. It is the force or the emotion accompanying his forced waving that he falsely perceives as reflect his sincerity that makes him think his gesture is ‘from the bottom of his heart’.
IT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE FORCE THEMSELVES TO GREET, WAVE, SMILE OR BE COURTEOUS AND THERE IS ACCOMPANYING EMOTION OR STIRRING OF THEIR MENTAL FORCES THAT THEY FALSELY PERCEIVE THEY MEAN IT, IT IS HEART FELT BUT THE REASON IT IS HEART FELT IS BECAUSE IT IS FORCED AGAINST SELF, HARMING SELF TO PLEASE AND IMPRESS OTHERS, IT IS BAD AND EVIL FOR SELF AND OTHERS, NOT GOOD AND SINCERE AS THE FOOL PERCEIVES.
WHAT OBAMA IS DOING IS ALWAYS REHASHED AS HE HAS ALWAYS DONE AND THEREFORE IT IS INSINCERE, ROBOTIC AND HE MUST HAVE A DISTURBED MIND BECAUSE HE IS GOING AGAINST HIMSELF TO PLEASE OTHERS.
Bank of England warns of the consequences of thrift
An attempt by British consumers to rein in spending after the harsh lessons of the recession could limit growth and therefore depress household income further, the Bank of England warns today.
The view articulated is wrong view and the destination for wrong view is hell or the animal womb.
My view: You spend because you have a need to spend, you have something useful to buy, not to spur economic growth and increase others’ household income. Saving is never a danger to the economy but spending to keep the economy hot is dangerous because spending is addictive and to spend to keep the economy growing is to encourage an irrational unsustainable attitude of spending to keep the economy on the boil.
Thus the person has an irrational worry that people will restrain their spending cooling the economy. A cooled economy may not be spectacular but it is of no danger to anyone but a hot economy is in danger of overheating and subsequent collapse and so the person is advocating harm for himself and others.
Tkl
Does ‘please’ mean ‘so incredible’?
When the person says ‘please!’ in reply to a question whether he has insulted Islam, it indicates he is so upset or his mental force stirred that he cannot believe he is accused of it or it is so incredible that he is guilty of insulting Islam.
YOU HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION THAT IS NOT HARMLESS (THE BUDDHA SAID YOU MUST SEE DANGER IN THE SLIGHTEST FAULT) THAT ‘PLEASE’ MEANS IT IS SO INCREDIBLE OR PREPOSTEROUS.
FURTHER THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION IS ‘YES’, ‘NO’ OR TO REMAIN SILENT, NOT TO BE DRAWN INTO AN ARGUMENT.
Window dressing not reform:
All this talk about curbing bonuses on Wall Street is much hype. According to this article the issue is limiting risk by demanding institutions have higher capital reserves that will reduce their illusory profits and thus bonuses.
Thus the Fed is effete and squirming rather than hitting the problem on the head.
The Fed’s phony war on bonuses
Posted by: Christopher Swann
Tags: Commentaries, banking, Bonuses, Federal Reserve
Any attack on bank bonuses is going to be a reliable crowd pleaser. So a Federal Reserve proposal to meddle in Wall Street pay would make a good deal of political sense.
But Fed officials are almost certainly aware that this populist flourish will do little to control risk-taking or stabilize the financial system. There are far simpler and more effective ways to clamp down on reckless bank behavior than seeking to micro-manage bank pay structures.
First, the Fed is certain to be outmatched.
In one corner you have a central bank that has been notoriously spineless on regulatory matters. The institution is crammed with officials who have traditionally seen themselves as defenders of the banking system and advocates of laissez faire.
Even some top Fed officials admit they would need a culture shift in order to take on more regulatory responsibility.
In the opposing corner you have heavy-weight Wall Street institutions with armies of lawyers dedicated to gaming the regulatory system.
There is a deeper objection to the Fed’s effort. The real problem is not the structure of bank pay but its scale.
The received wisdom remains that longer-term incentives will curb risk taking. Lock up bonuses in stock and you will tame bankers. The experience of the 2008 financial crisis screams otherwise.
In the case of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, leading bankers were major shareholders. Richard Fuld was heavily invested in Lehman stock and saw the bulk of his fortune evaporate when the firm collapsed. Ownership does not seem to lower risk.
Other proposals promoted to control recklessness — such as trying to claw back pay if bets go sour years later — look even more misguided. Such schemes would almost certainly create endless bureaucratic wrangling and possibly legal disputes.
The basic point is that government could ban bonuses outright and it would not eliminate the lure of taking risk. Ambitious executives and bankers would still be spurred on by the prospect of big leaps in base pay or other forms of compensation.
The key, then, is to curb the overall amount of risk that banks can take on. The main tool for doing this is by insisting on much larger capital reserves.
This kills two birds with one stone. Tighter capital rules will increase the stability of the financial system and limit the exposure of taxpayers in the event of failure. In addition, tighter capital rules are the most reliable way of bringing down overall bank pay.
To be fair, the U.S. Treasury also has carefully considered plans on bank capital. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that the fuss being made over bonuses is intended merely to create the illusion of action.
In the event that the banks manage to block deeper reform, the Fed and White House need to be able to claim some kind of victory. The public should not be deceived. The attack on bonuses is mere window dressing.
French folly:
Recently Air France pilots expressed their concern that faulty pitot tubes caused the fatal Air France crash but Air France and Airbus said it was a factor but not the cause.
This is voluntary and involuntary false logic.
It is voluntary because there is vested interest to deny because otherwise they would be culpable for more damages and bad image.
It is involuntary because they have serious false perception that it is possible that something is a factor but not the cause.
AIR CRASHES DO NOT OCCUR EVERYDAY AND IF SOMETHING THAT CAN CAUSE SEVERE DISRUPTION EVEN A CRASH IS KNOWN TO HAVE FAILED THAT NIGHT (NAMELY THE PITOT TUBES) THEN IT MUST BE THE CAUSE OF THE CRASH. IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT ANOTHER CAUSE OF A CRASH SHOULD ALSO OCCUR ON THE SAME NIGHT AS THIS CAUSE OF THE CRASH ALSO OCCURRED. THUS BECAUSE DATA CLEARLY SHOWED THE PITOT TUBES FAILED, IT MUST BE THE ONLY CAUSE OF THE CRASH. COMPUTER PROGRAMS WERE TOO AGGRESSIVELY PROGRAMMED TO TRIGGER VIOLENT CORRECTIVE RESPONSES TO (FALSE) INPUT OF STALLED AIRCRAFT AND THIS MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PLANE TO CRASH.
Two killers decide to kill you on the same night?
What are the chances that two independent killers should strike and kill you on the same night?
Even if a violent storm could bring down the Airbus, if it would not have happened if the pitot tubes did not fail, then it is the pitot tubes, not the severe storm that brought it down.
Much work but doing nothing:
He is exalting himself, making much of his scoring a goal and wanting to stir the mental forces of the audience to like what he did and worship him and that is stirring force, doing work for show to impress and stir others which is always controlled madness.
Without significant self identity view (I scored, wow!) a person cannot indulge in this and self identity view is one of three lower fetters to future woe, the Buddha teaches you.
No comments:
Post a Comment