TKDfella

15 hours ago, placeholder said:

No, your comments don't answer why getting an abortion isn't taking responsibility. It just answers why you think abortion is wrong. There's a difference.

You will not find the word 'wrong' in my comments simply because that is not my stance. And I have answered on 'responsibility' and if you can't see that then that is your problem not mine.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

The fetus does not achieve "human person" until it has a brain capable of consciousness.  That doesn't happen until the third trimester.  Until then it has the potential to become a person, which is significant.  I'm sure all women contemplating an abortion consider this potential and weigh it against the impact to the rest of that woman's life.  Few women make that choice lightly, but it should be their choice.

You give a balanced answer. I would agree that whatever is the scientific determination of 'human being' then an abortion prior to that could not classified as 'murder'. However, I would take the stance that a fetus prior to the 'human stage' still possesses life, that is, the fetus is alive and should be allowed to develop. 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

And why isn't getting an abortion taking responsibility for your actions? Not punitive enough?

My comments already answer that...but here you go again back on the 'one side' the person who is pregnant. I haven't mentioned any form of punishment but you obviously equate taking responsibility for one's action with punishment. Sad.

Very sad indeed. My condolences. What is the % vote in the US Congress to change the Constitution? Does it have have to go through The House first or is only the Senate involved? The UK has had laws against carrying weapons although in the past that didn't really stop people acquiring pistols etc.

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

I suspect you're preparing some sort of rhetorical nonsense since the meaning is obvious. But to gratify you, here it is: a pregnancy unwanted by a pregnant woman.

Nothing rhetorical about it. But you have done precisely as I thought you would simply one sided. What about the father? It takes the two people to produce and the father can be just as irresponsible about his actions as can the mother. My earlier comments are not aimed at just women but men too...

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

How about instead of educating by punishment how about educating by education. Florida's latest legislation will make teaching sex ed in schools dangerous to a teacher's employment. And by trying to cut off funding to the largest contraceptive provider in the state, it's setting itself up for more unwanted pregnancies. The supposed reason for anti-abortion legislation is to protect children, not to punish women. But we can see by Florida's refusal to accept the expansion of Medicaid which would provide health care to children who are actually born, that Florida's laws are about being punitive. Concern for children clearly doesn't enter into it.

How do you define 'unwanted pregnancies'?

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

You are right, and many pro life people would agree. However, political reality intrudes. Much like the gun issue, where a lot of anti gun people would rather there be zero guns in America. Most people see a compromise position somewhere in the middle. 

 

This bill allows abortions up to 15 weeks for rape and incest, and also for risk of life/substantial health risk of the mother. So it is not actually a ban.  More an imposition of responsibility on people who choose to be sexually active. 

I am pro-life (and not religious) but with conditionals you mention. How often does one see a comment about Thai people not taking responsibility for their actions? Yet when it comes one's own country, the principle seems to get lost. If a person doesn't want children then they shouldn't play 'Russian roulette' with their body.

Probably things have changed but I took E.R. @ 50 y/o but the company I was working for told me to me write to the UK Pensions office as soon as I got settled. I did just that and received info that I would receive another letter informing me of the calculated % I would receive at 65. Also enclosed was a form for me to complete (address bank details etc.).  After a while I received said info which also included the starting date of the pension. A few weeks before the starting date I received notification and my pension was deposited into my Thai Bank account. I receive a certificate of existence once a year (same for company pension) which I return by Registered Mail when completed. (Company pension accepts a PDF of completed form which I send by email.)

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Beyond minor short term fluctuation, the pound is certainly not ‘strengthens’ against the US Dollar or its major trading currency the Euro.

 

Most companies on the FTSE are trading overseas their share price determined by that overseas trade, not the health or otherwise of the UK economy.

 

 

Well, the US certainly has gone down this week against the GBP but that could be due to a non-UK reason.

If this second hand doll cost ฿25,000 I wonder how much the AI companions will be...I've obviously lived a very sheltered life, ฿25,000 for a sex doll!!!!???? Geez

My condolences...six people in one accident...tragic. The ladies that were their late 50's...I wouldn't call that 'old'.

The additional problem with Methane (CH₄) is that it has something like a ten year life span, in the atmosphere. Although it eventually decreases by reaction we are probably releasing more than enough to compensate. Although deep mining (coal) releases much of the Methane, open surface mining (metals) does too, to a lesser extent. (Building homes, large business structures is a 'double whammy'. Not only releasing Methane while preparing foundations, concrete/cement release CO₂.) And while many reports mention livestock as emitters of Methane, we humans produce and release methane gas too. The methane is produced by bacteria (methanogens) in the gastrointestinal tract. But it seems that just how much is produced in a person depends fitness, diet and other factors. So there you go fellas, expect a Methane Tax anytime now, Ha ????

For me, it was the IO that suggested I change from marriage to retirement. Probably because it's less work for them too...much easier for both parties and less time at the counter.

2 hours ago, connda said:

That's a good idea.  Legalize it and regulate it.  And with the regulation of the trade, focus on ending human trafficking, especially under-aged minors.

Like many other things I doubt if they will set up an agency to regulate it. If it's going to be anything like 'regulating' (policing) the traffic then...you know what I mean. My guess is that the workers will get little aid but the the Taxman will be thinking 'shall we tax per ฿1000, by client or by service performed'...Wonder if VAT will be added?

Below is a computer simulation of Earths magnetic field;

but of course to our eyes the field is invisible. Without it the Earth's surface would be hit by radiation and fast moving subatomic particles...and we wouldn't be here. It's a very active place and what goes on in the region is not yet completely understood...although we are getting there. There are Bow Shocks, several types of storms and very low frequency sound waves on the Earth side of the bow shock. So it is possible that rocky exoplanets could have a preserved surface and protected atmosphere although close proximity to the parent star (in this case a Red Dwarf in the Constellation of Cetus {sea monster}} will have other effects to consider. All fascinating stuff.

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

I still haven't figured out how the balloons were steered over military targets. No engines means they were at the mercy of winds.

Must have had one of the 羽人, Birdman (Chinese myth)????

Yep, the start of 'being in when you are out'.

Can I hear the tanks revving up? I still think Thaksin is just trying to stir things up and he'll stay away...but I could be wrong, eh?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No need to try again. You explained it quite well. I had ( like most, I suspect ) the wrong idea about black holes. I did think they were like a Hoover.

Sooooo, seems like my theory about black holes causing the destruction and rebirth of the universe is wrong, and it is possible that this universe will just carry on as a collection of dead matter for ever.

Perhaps there really are new universes being created out there in infinite space.

Yes, the are misconceptions but I wouldn't say that you were wrong at all. At the present time the scenario seems to be that the known universe is expanding and if that continues it could rip our universe apart. Galaxies will be stretched out then stars and their systems, right down to atoms. However, suppose this current rate of expansion slows down and stops, then BH's could well help the universe to collapse under gravitation and the whole things starts all over again. Scientists consider that all things tend towards a state of equilibrium and all that will be left is a thermal background. But others argue for a 'many worlds interpretation', 'Multiverse' or a single uni-something that is infinite and what we can see or exist in, is but a tiny micro-state of that infinity.....and I haven't mentioned the possibility of higher physical dimensions. So if you have an idea...keep it, you might just turn out to be right.????

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Any chance you can provide an explanation of that in understandable English?

Ha, I thought I had written simply anyway but I was really replying to a comment about Black Holes (BH) being similar. The simple answer is that they are not and it depends on several factors. Our Sun is not expected to become, eventually. a BH because it doesn't have enough mass. Our Sun will expand to become red giant and then after a billion years or so, will blast away most of the the outer gasses etc. and become a White dwarf, a compact bright object about the size of the Earth. More massive stars, say 10+ times our Sun, will become Super red giants then go super novae, collapse and become a Neutron star*. Here the quantum forces balance the massive gravitational force. However, in such a case finally the quantum forces are not enough, gravity takes over another collapse occurs this time forming a Black Hole. The characteristics of the BH will depend on the former neutron star (mass, rate of spin etc.). The term 'black Hole' is a bit misleading in everyday terms since most of us see a 'hole' as a circular pit on some surface. Potholes in the road for example, you make a hole in a sheet of paper and so on. Astronomical Black Holes are three dimensional 'holes' (spherical) meaning that no matter what direction you approach it you see a black void, a 'hole'. Somewhere inside that darkness all the mass that was the neutron star is now concentrated at the centre point of the dark sphere.(this is not the only possible scenario but it's the simplest one). The gravity around a 10 Sun mass BH will be strong enough to attract any other material that is around and because the 'hole is spinning the attraction will be in form of a disk. Very basically, the point where the material meets the dark surface is called the Event Horizon (EH), and as I said, it is spherical and the size of that dark sphere will depend on the concentrated mass inside. The more mass the bigger the sphere of the EH.

*(Another point is that there is more than one type of Neutron star...i won't go into details...so again, can affect the characteristics of the final outcome.)

I hope this is a 'good enough' explanation...If not I'll try again, Ha???? 

My condolences. Sad,very sad.

14 hours ago, eisfeld said:

Hm I'm not sure what "limit" you mean but if you are talking about the graviational pull at the EH then every black hole in the universe has the exact same amount of gravity on that sphere pretty much by definition because the event horizon is the point at which gravity is so strong that light can't escape anymore and that is a constant.

 

Indeed, especially about whatever lies inside because as far as we know it's impossible to actually ever find out because no information from inside can be obtained from outside.

I do agree that I was ambiguous using the word 'limit'. What I meant was, the radius of a EH depends upon the mass. For example, for our Sun collapsing into a BH (it can't actually) the EH sphere around the central point (where a singularity might be, say) the EH radius would around 2.95 km. The strength of the gravitational force on the surface of the EH sphere would be of the order 1.52×10¹³ m/s² or roughly about 1.52×10¹² times that of the Earth. For a BH 10 times the mass of the Sun the EH radius would around 29.5 km and surface G about 1.52×10¹¹ times that of the Earth. So the larger the EH radius the less gravity there is at its surface. So for the BH under discussion here the EH radius is 9.7×10¹⁰ km (in my earlier comment I wrote 9.7×10¹³ km...I failed to convert meters to km) and its surface gravity only 47 times that of Earth. (in my earlier comment I said much less than...actually I calculated 0.047 of Earth but again I got the decimal point position wrong. I apologise.) For a BH 100 times the mass of this the figures are 9.7×10¹² km and 0.47 Earth g. This is deceptive because one might think that it would be easy to escape. No that is not the case. Once over the EH of such a massive BH a kind 'free fall' takes place and each point further needing much more energy than a moment ago and so a travel curve occurs within the EH until a point is reached which means a 'straight' dive to the centre. (This is unfortunately the simplest scenario because in reality the rotation of a BH would have some effect too.) For a BH much larger than the one discussed one could cross the EH and not notice it (with respect to gravity) but your eventual fate would be the same. (Another consideration is that there could also be an Inner EH depending on the characteristics of the BH.)

As far as information is concerned, this is still a hotly debated issue. Prof Hawkins theorised that BH's would destroy information and a BH would get smaller by thermal radiation (that doesn't carry information). Prof. Suskind said that this was wrong...that information cannot be destroyed is the golden rule of QM. Hence we had a paradox. Recent papers suggest that Prof Hawkins while being right in BH radiation but may be wrong in that it was thermal. They suggest the radiation is quantum mechanical and therefore no loss of information. Various universities will conduct simulations see which is more likely. The story continues....????