richard_smith237

This is nonsensical. Thats your intelligent counter argument ??... the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge. Explained again for you (below), this time in greater detail... to counter your simplistic and dumbed down simplification that fails to acknowledge or understand scale. The constellations haven’t significantly changed over thousands of years despite Earth's and the Sun's incredible motions because of the vast distances between Earth and the stars. This is why: Stellar Distances Are Immense: The stars in constellations are incredibly far away, ranging from tens to thousands of light-years. A light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles, meaning that even though Earth, the Sun, and the entire solar system are moving through space, these motions are minuscule compared to the scale of the cosmos. Relative Motion: The constellations appear fixed to us because their relative positions on the celestial sphere change extremely slowly over time. This is due to the fact that the stars themselves are also moving through the galaxy, but their motion, known as proper motion, is so small from our perspective that it takes tens of thousands to millions of years to become noticeable. Human Observation Timeframe: Humanity has only been observing the stars in detail for a few thousand years, a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Over longer timescales, constellations do change shape, but these changes are imperceptible on the scale of a human lifetime or even recorded history. Earth’s Movements Are Local: The Earth's rotation at ~1,000 mph and its orbit around the Sun at ~66,600 mph are local motions confined to the solar system. They don't significantly alter our line of sight to distant stars. The Sun’s motion around the galaxy at ~450,000 mph is more significant, but the galaxy is vast, so the Sun's position relative to most stars changes only slightly over thousands of years. Precession and Small Shifts: Earth’s axial precession (a slow wobble of its rotation axis) over ~26,000 years causes shifts in which stars are seen at different times of the year, but the constellations themselves remain recognisable. Minor changes in constellations have been recorded, but they are subtle and require precise measurements. In summary, while Earth and the Sun are moving at high speeds, the immense distances to the starts make their apparent positions stable over the relatively short timescale of human history. Over millennia or millions of years, constellations will change, but these changes are gradual and take an extraordinary amount of time to become evident. But.. I'll put it in very simple terms if you still struggle with the above. Think of a plane in the sky: Vast Distances: A high-altitude aircraft looks almost stationary because it's far away, even if it's moving fast. Similarly, stars are so far that their motion appears negligible. Relative Motion: Just as two aircraft at different distances can appear to stay in the same spot relative to each other, stars move so slowly relative to us that we don’t see changes over thousands of years. Short Observation Time: Watching an aircraft for a minute won’t reveal much about its journey. Similarly, a few thousand years of human observation is too short to notice major shifts in constellations. Local Motion: A low-altitude aircraft appears to move fast across the sky because it’s close. Earth and the Sun’s motion are like the low aircraft, they’re significant locally but negligible relative to the stars. Slow Changes: A high aircraft will seem to move slowly across the sky. Over long periods, constellations do change, but like the high plane, the changes are too gradual to notice in the short term.

So far, my beliefs have not been rationally refuted. I recall derogatory language, lots of laughing emojis and lying by omission. I encourage you to write the entire Twain quote. Here's the quote... But, given your writing its clear you are not stupid, which is why I assumed you can't seriously believe this nonsense and are simply playing the roll of a trollish devils advocate in this thread... I still struggle with the idea that an intelligent person could genuinely believe the idea of a non-spherical Earth.

Because that's not what discussion forums are for. We see distressing and puzzling events and it's natural to want to discuss the event. You could say why post here at all - just read the final crash report late next year and in total solitude. Exactly - this is an informal forum designed for discussion... It often astonishes me how often people miss this very point... You can return here with the information in 12 months or more and re-ignite this thread then.

Even without hydraulics it can be manually lowered. Yup the 737-800 landing gear can be unlocked from the cabin and manually lowed via-gravity and free-fall into place and locked with a spring-loaded mechanism... (according to other reports). Thus: were the pilots aware of the landing gear failure before touchdown ? -------- Bringing this on topic - the amount of media attention this gets fuels the discussion regarding airline safety, however, 52 people died on Thailands roads just yesterday (not accounting for those who die 2-3 days later in hospital) - Air-travel, is still so much safer than road travel.

Same here... But I'm starting to wonder if it will ever 'really take off'... The jump from $0.40 to >$2.00 has been great and the lining on what can only be described as a rubbish year, though I still consider myself very lucky compared to others.

I'm surprised by the lack of run-off area... Though, depending on location, I think a lot of airports are like this due to space constraints... But, had that wall at the end of the runway not existed and instead there were a longer run off area, this disaster may not have been so extreme. Of course, airports are not designed expecting 'landing gear failure'...

If someone has an irrational fear, that does not impact statistics and probability.... ... they just 'think' it does... flying is not more unsafe just because you accidentally wee a little bit through fear during take off...

Yup... I see that angle... But see no reason for them to price the room like this other than stubborn greed. There is no reason not to charge the Op 1.5x Monthly rate, other than greed (IMO of course). Less than a Week: Daily rate A week or more: Weekly rate A month or more: Monthly rate (Then of course there are long term rates for 6monthly and yearly) If someone were going to stay 7months, and 16 days.. The idea that they are charged as below is rather preposterous.... - 6monthly rate for 6 months - Monthly rate for 1 month - Weekly rate for 2 weeks - Daily rate for 2 days When instead they pro-rata at the 6 month rate.

You were lucky to be getting that rate . You were getting the discount monthly rate whilst staying weekly . The cheaper monthly rate is when you stay for a whole month . Its a bit cheeky expecting the cheap monthly rate when you aren't staying the full month . He's met the monthly criteria by already staying one month. The additional week is not a separate stay - its an extension of staying the month. The ops point is perfectly valid - this policy does not recognise the fact that someone has already stayed a month and highlights inflexibility and valuing an existing customer. There is no reason at all to charge a daily rate for the time spend 'over the month' other than a human making that decision. It would be simple enough for the property manager to pro-rata the monthly rate has the Op has already stayed a month, and thus welcome a return customer in future - the Policy of the new property manager is short-sighted. No they don't... Thats just the long term rental properties - its something different than monthly rentals.

If someone is scared of something it’s because they think it’s not safe! Irrelevant... irrational fear does not alter safety from a statistical perspective. 20% of Thailands road deaths are in 4 wheeled+ vehicles - thats about 5000 per year. Does the same person who is scared of flying, get scared of driving ? - that covers the irrational angle you may have attempted to counter with.

Come on Brit... fess up... its for you really, no ??? There are concerns with this car regarding safety: In December 2024, the Neta V received a zero-star safety rating from the ASEAN NCAP. But... if the alternative is a motorcycle - its still a lot safer, if you're only driving around town and not going far on highways etc There's not many 'relatively' new cars on the market for 300k baht - you'd be looking at a 2020 Suzuki Swift, 2020 Toyota Yaris, or Altis, or another pickup. There is also the question of charging the Neta V - would you be able to use a Granni charger to meet your 'distance' needs ?

Because it is more important for them to get off the plane first. The question was rhetorical with the objective of highliting the safety of air-travel. If the risk of air-travel was not so 'insignificant' then the higher paying passengers would be placed in the safest area of the air-craft - but that measure is not taken because comfort and convenience by far outweighs the almost Infinitesimally small risk.

We get it... You don't like Barboy, who I agree is very likely Bob Smith... ... but, you are showing an unhealthy interest and trolling his threads more than he trolls the rest of us with his threads and polls. If you don't like the guy, just block him then you won't see his content... Instead I have to block you because of all the rubbish you keep posting in his threads. Just because the author of the thread is Barboy (bob) - its does not automatically mean the thread is trolling, wasteful or not worthy of discussion... Plenty of his threads are, but not all, and thus can be considered in individual merit.

One facet to all of this.. The survivors on the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 were in the tail of the aircraft. Test-Crashes have shown that... Front of the Plane: Passengers in the front of the plane typically experience the highest G-forces during a crash. Studies showed that forces can range from 12 G to over 50 G, depending on the crash's severity. Middle of the Plane: Forces tend to decrease slightly in the middle of the plane, with typical G-forces ranging from 6 G to 20 G. Back of the Plane: Passengers in the rear often experience the lowest G-forces because of the cushioning effect of the fuselage's collapse. Forces here may range from 4 G to 12 G in controlled crash scenarios. So... Why is Business and First Class not at the back of the Plane if it is the safer area ???? (Years ago was on a domestic flight in Kazakhstan - business was at the back of the plane). Answer of course, is that the risk of an accident is so low it is considered insignificant when balanced against convenience for boarding and deplaning and cabin noise.

Air-travel is as safe as rail travel... and both are the safest form of transport - though I very much would not want to take a train from Thailand to the UK. IF you (bob) have thought about this, what are your thoughts when you get in a car when car travel is 62x more dangerous than air travel ??? Global Fatality Rate (per 100 million passenger-kilometers) - Air Travel: ~0.05 (safe globally) - Buses: ~0.07 (EU data) - Rail Travel: ~0.04 (EU data) - Cars: ~3.1 globally (varies by region) - Motorcycles: ~108.9 globally (varies significantly)

And the 'they don't look Thai to me' apologist !!!

I agree with all of this... But are the accidents happened at 7pm when Mum is returning with food from the market ?... Or are they happening at 3am when Bob or Somchai is wrecked out of his brains and speeding ? Because, if its the latter, Bob or Somchai will find other ways to kill themselves - and thus, all the good intentions and fantastic road engineering in the world will not prevent their deaths when the ride head on into another car after failing to navigate a bed while speeding etc... That said - I am in 100% agreement with Kwilco's earlier comment and your comments above that the drainage ditches and utility poles are a lethal hazard, had they not been there the motorcyclist would still be alive - until his drunk riding behavior and speeding dictates otherwise. Thus: Stupid people will still find a way to kill themselves no matter how great the roads are - In aggregate, the accident and fatality rates can be reduced, but this also requires societal shift in attitudes towards road safety, not just 'better engineered roads'...

There's no need to be so hard on yourself. Your pontifical abilities are right up there with the best of them. Touché !

And you aren't? No, because I agree with and believe in the 'road engineering' and 'traffic calming measures' that lead to accidents and road fatalities. Where Kwilco and I differ, is that I also believe that even with the best road engineer people stupid riders and drivers will still find a way to kill themselves. So, while the rhetoric of my argument may seen one sided, it is in fact multifaceted, accomodate all factors yet still arrives at the same conclusion - stupid people will do stupid thing and we can't engineer for all of them.

It could be explained to you, but it can't be understood for you !!... At risk of contracting the famous Mark Twain quote... I'll give a very brief explanation, though I'm sure you can't seriously believe what you write, instead you are playing a 'devils advocate troll'... The constellations appear relatively unchanged over thousands of years despite Earth's motions because of the vast distances between stars and the scale of the universe. Here are the main reasons..... Vast Distances: Stars are so far away that Earth's and the Sun's motions barely affect their apparent positions. Relative Motion: Stars also move, but their shifts are tiny from our perspective over thousands of years. Short Observation Time: Human history is too short to notice significant changes in constellations. Local Motion: Earth's and the Sun's speeds are insignificant compared to the cosmic scale. Slow Changes: Precession and star motion cause small shifts, but constellations only change noticeably over millennia or more. Water doesn’t “stick” to a spinning ball in space due to belief or magic but rather because of gravity, and the gravity on earth exceeds the centrifugal inertia. Somewhat difficult when your beliefs are irrational... we get dragged down the rabbit hole and the Mark Twain quote springs back to minds.... "Never argue with a... " 10 pages on this thread and I've avoided posting because I fail to believe that someone can truly believe that the Earth is not spherical and for some reason some posters such as yourself are getting a trollish kick out of this...

Are you betraying intimate knowledge of a soi most of us have never heard of ???

You heard it from me before because it is factual. The AOC, banks and police work together on this and, for the initial investigation, I don't believe that a warrant is necessary as the time delay would defeat the object of the exercise that is to try to reimburse people who have been scammed before the funds are transferred out of the mule bank account to a third party. Is there anything in place that stops me from blocking my Wife's account (just to use an example) ? It seems, if it was this easy, anyone could block anyone else's account and use this tool as revenge etc. Thus: How easy is this actually ? (not argumentative but genuinely interested ) Wife and I were scammed 2800 baht - I would have very much liked to have the recipient account frozen.

Based on 20,000 deaths per year the average is 54... 52 is below the daily average !

I've read this from you before... but I can't remember the response to the question probably asked at the time. What is to stop someone from calling up 'this number' and reporting someone they've had an argument with and getting their account frozen almost immediately ? Is a police report and some form of warrant not necessary to freeze an account ?

That link is a good insight into the financial interplay between private and state education sectors, however, the report misses a lot of nuance and misses the far-reaching implications on educational equity and public finances. Note: the IFS is funded (in part) by UK government departments. 1) Disparity Between Private School Fees and State School Spending: The report notes that in 2022–23, average private school fees were £15,200, nearly 90% higher than state school spending per pupil, which was £8,000. This gap has more than doubled since 2010. Counterargument: While the nominal gap has increased, this comparison doesn't account for differences in services provided. Private schools often offer additional facilities, extracurricular activities, and lower student-to-teacher ratios, which contribute to higher fees. Therefore, a direct financial comparison may not fully capture the value proposition of private education. 2) Stability of Private School Attendance: Despite rising fees, the proportion of pupils attending private schools has remained around 6–7% over the past two decades. Counterargument: The steady percentage may mask underlying socioeconomic factors. Higher-income families might continue to afford private education, while middle-income families are increasingly priced out, potentially leading to greater educational inequality - the report also makes a huge assumption that the demographic for private schools is concentrated at the very top of the income distribution - I'd like to see the facts and real data here as the assumption that this will only impact those who can afford is very flawed IMO but fits perfectly with the governmental bias, in the hope they will receive the support along the lines of 'tax the rich' - the rich won't be impacted, the middle income and lower income demographics will be. 3) Revenue from Removing Tax Exemptions: The IFS estimates that eliminating tax exemptions, such as introducing VAT on private school fees, could generate approximately £1.6 billion annually in additional tax revenue. Counterargument: Implementing VAT on private school fees could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased financial strain on families, potential reductions in private school enrolments, and a subsequent rise in demand for state school places. This shift could offset the anticipated revenue gains due to the need for increased state funding to accommodate additional students. 4) Impact on State School Funding: A projected 3–7% decrease in private school attendance due to fee increases would necessitate an additional £100–300 million per year for state schools to accommodate the influx of students. Counterargument: The actual impact on state schools could be more significant than estimated. An influx of students may strain resources, affect class sizes, and potentially diminish the quality of education. Moreover, regional disparities in state school capacities could lead to uneven effects across the country. 5) Net Public Finance Impact: After accounting for additional state school funding needs, the net gain to public finances from removing tax exemptions is estimated at £1.3–1.5 billion per year, potentially allowing for a 2% increase in state school spending targeted at disadvantaged students. Counterargument: The projected net gain may be overly optimistic. Administrative costs associated with implementing and enforcing new tax policies, potential tax avoidance strategies by private schools or parents, and the economic impact of reduced disposable income for families could diminish the expected financial benefits. But, as highlighted earlier (copy and paste) >> If its one thing we've already learned from this government, its how readily they lie, and how quickly they will sell out the needy << will the labour government really re-invest that £1.6 BN into state schools or spend it elsewhere ? 6) Uncertainty and Potential Risks: The report acknowledges uncertainties, including potential reductions in labour supply and tax avoidance behaviours, which could affect the outcomes of removing tax exemptions. Counterargument: These uncertainties highlight the complexity of the issue. Policymakers should consider comprehensive impact assessments and explore alternative strategies to address educational funding disparities without unintended negative consequences.