Longwood50

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The case here is simple. Trump didn’t prioritize the importance of vigilance to the intelligence community. President Biden did.

And just exaclty where do you cite this from other than the crevices of your mind.  

As said, even if I buy your position that Biden is the one who heightened the security (WHICH I DOUBT)  He is unquestionably the one who let the balloon go undeterred for 8 days as it crossed thousands of kilometers both in the USA and Canada.

If you believe that is prioritizing the importance of vigilance I can sure understand why you are a Biden backer.  Your logic makes about as much sense as one of his speeches. 

 

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't think it is clear who identified the balloon first but if it was not the US military then that would be a worry. It seems that this only became public knowledge once Larry Meyer had his photographs published in the Billings Gazette.

I am not sure either.  However the balloon was first spotted over the Southern Tip of the Alaskan Aeultian islands.  So if anything "Bidens" crack surveillance should have detected and destroyed it over the Pacific Ocean on January 28 when it was first spotted.   One way or another the balloon was allowed to travel for thousands of kilometers across an expanse of Canada and the United States.  It is pure bunk that the balloon had to travel thousands of kilometers across vast unpopulated regions to reach the Atlantic Ocean before being shot down.  

This "credit" to Biden for increased surveillance is nonsense.  One has no idea who ramped up the ability of the USA to detect these balloons.  However we sure know who let the thing travel for 8 days.  What good did it do to detect it and then let it travel to gather intelligence. 

42 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It is really not that confusing. President Joe BIden has demonstrated that by prioritising to the intellgence community the importance of vigilance and assets deployment on his first day of office. Trump didn't. It is that simple. 

LOL now that is funny.  Your dislike for Trump is so great you make up assertions.  

So lets see, the Pentagon did not know that the balloons existed, but Trump should have prioritized detecting them, which Biden did only because the Pentagon later discovered their gap. 

In the meantime, this was the path of the balloon which traveled for thousands of kilometers across the southern tip of Alaska, Canada, and first detected by 'BIDENS" enhanced vigilance in Montana.  Now this "enhanced vigilance" led Biden to only let it completely traverse 3,700 Kilometers across the continental United States despite it being over near empty areas of Montana.  

Yep, I can sure see why you think Biden was spot on in his prioritizing the speedy response to this threat for only 8 days between January 28, and February 4.   I can see why you are a Biden Supporter.  You sound like him. 

— The balloon was spotted over the Aleutian Islands along the southern tip of Alaska. 2. It was sighted Wednesday over south-western Montana, ...
 

26 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

That seem to be the lapse in detecting the past surveillance ballons. No orders from the Commander-in-Chief to the intelligence community to increase vigilance and deployment of assets to detect spy ballons from enemy states.

Now is there a part of this statement you find confusing.  So according to you, Trump should have increased vigalance and the deployment of assets to detect spy balllons that were not "detected"  

Amazing insight on your part. 

“I will tell you that we did not detect those threats, and that’s a domain awareness gap,” said Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the commander of the Pentagon’s Northern Command.

 

17 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

We didn;t hear about that too. Too much coverup during Trump's adminstration to give him a pass on any benefit of doubt. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/06/politics/pentagon-balloon-monday/index.html

17 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

You know nothing about the incursions because it was not disclosed by the Trump's administration.

Oh but now you do?  You infer that it was hidden.  Check google.  It can be your friend. 

“From every indication that we have, that was for brief periods of time — nothing at all like what we saw last week in terms of duration,” said Mr. Kirby, referring to the balloon that spent much of last week traversing the country before the United States shot it down

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/us/politics/china-spy-balloon-trump-administration.html

.

WASHINGTON — The top military commander overseeing North American airspace said Monday that some previous incursions by Chinese spy balloons during the Trump administration were not detected in real time, and the Pentagon learned of them only later.

“I will tell you that we did not detect those threats, and that’s a domain awareness gap,” said Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the commander of the Pentagon’s Northern Command.

One explanation, multiple U.S. officials said, is that some previous incursions were initially classified as “unidentified aerial phenomena,” Pentagon speak for U.F.O.s. As the Pentagon and intelligence agencies stepped up efforts over the past two years to find explanations for many of those incidents, officials reclassified some events as Chinese spy balloons.

 

11 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

The question in my mind is: If the package was the size of 3 busses, as I seem to recall was reported in UK news, why was it not spotted earlier? It made Alaska and Canada....

You raise a good question.  This is the path that the Daily Mail UK states the balloon took You sure would have expected that the balloon would have been spotted as it approached Canada and certainly as it crossed over Canadian airspace before entering Montana.  One thing is for sure, the balloon should have been destroyed over Montana which is largely open land.  It appears the balloon also went over South Dakota close to Rapid City.  For anyone who has traveled to that area of South Dakota whidh is called the Black Hills, it is rugged mostly uninhabited and a huge National Park.  Hardly something that would raise a concern over falling debris from the balloon. 

16 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Yup, but the law doesn't specify ALL buildings. Why not read the law?

I don't need to read the law.  As stated. If it says that certain buildings built after 1992 must have sprinkling systems, there should be none, since construction should not have been permitted after that. 

If the law stipulates that certain buildings must be retrofitted, then it begs the question why has it not been enforced for the past 20 years. 

One way or another the passage of a law does not solve the issue of how to pay for such sprinkling systems.  The law may issue a judgement against a person for 10 million baht.  But it the person does not have the 10 million baht such a judgement is meaningless. 

The same is true of a regulation that mandates that a building own must have a sprinkling system.  If that owner lacks the money or the ability to borrow it then the regulation is unenforceable. 

I am sure it was just for his own personal use. 

1 hour ago, BigStar said:

The law's been in effect since 1992, two decades before COVID, plenty of time. And, as I mentioned earlier, money doesn't have to be laying lying around.

I am not sure what law you are referring to however if it merely requires new buildings built after 1991 to have sprinkling systems then there should be no buildings in the past 20 years that don't have them since the law would prohibit their construction.

If the law says retrofit then it begs the question why it has not been enforced for upwards of 20 years. 

As to money laying around, I beg to differ with you.  When you contact the installation company they are going to ask for payment before proceeding.  

As with your own personal expeditures on your residence, you only have two choices take it out of money you have in reserve or you borrow it.  Given covid I doubt that hotels, and apartments that were impacted by covid have substantial reserves left after they tapped whatever money they saved to tide them over for two years. 

As to borrowing it, that assumes that the person could do that, and that they could then raise the community fees or apartment rates sufficient to cover payments back on the loan.  It is exteremely naive to believe that all the buildings that would require retrofitting would have access to money to pay for it.  And I seriously doubt any contractor would start installing a sprinkler system without being paid. 

I know this is true for 90 day reports but this is the first I have heard of it for Retirement Extensions.  I would be most interested since mine is due this month

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

most buildings including older one's have what's called a pipe shaft .... which is a void usually in the corner for all pipes, water, electrical and conduits etc ...  and each condo has it's utilities run from there.

I was not aware of that.  If that is true, certainly the retrofit would be far easier.  However it still does not change that such an installation is expensive.  Getting every condo owner to pay is more than a challenge.  For apartment buildings or hotels that have gone through two years of Covid, I doubt they have money just laying around for installing a sprinkling system.  

In the USA, all new facilities must have them.  Older facilites retrofitted if they are like for children or nursing homes, hospitals etc. 

4 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Another straw man. Nobody said, implied, or suggested the amount required is trivial. I think you should come up with some useful, informative point or quit the thread, as you're just repeating the same thing over and over.

Back at you.  I pointed out, they are a good idea.  However you and others keep pounding the refrain that they should be mandatory.  I merely point out the obvious that you seem to want to ignore.  THEY COST MONEY. 

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Stainless or whatever, who cares, Anything that looks OK and provides some help if there's a fire. 

Do you want to use MasterCard, Visa, or your bank account to pay for the installation?  

Definition of a Liberal:  Someone who believes they have a great idea, want to implement it by mandate, and have someone else pay it. 

17 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Like everything else, duh. A trivial point you keep repeating as it's some kind of news.

And you believe having money to pay for it is trivial and keep repeating it.  You must be a liberal. 

16 hours ago, scorecard said:

Well fitted stainless pipes, nicely installed better than nothing.

Ah now stainless pipes.  Why not shining copper or platinum?  

Marie Antoinette " let them eat cake" 

Thailand "let them just have stainless"

15 hours ago, BigStar said:

Those projects wouldn't save me if my building starts to burn down. I'm more concerned with my own life, you see. So I'll go for the sprinkler system. You go for the saved lives on the roads and enjoy your barbecue.

Yes, and it would be good to have a fire station right outside every apartment building and condo.  

The fact remains that whether done expertly, or aesthetically so as to not detract.  IT COSTS MONEY.  

If it was an apartment building that doesn't mean that the apartment owner has the money for the retrofit or that he/she could borrow enough to have it completed.

As a person who lives in a village of homes, I can tell you that not every homeowner pays their common fees.  So saying Condo Owners even if the majority agree will come up with the money to pay for the installation is a pipe dream. 

Do I think sprinkling systems are a good idea, YES.  So are fire alarm systems,  so are security cameras, so are security guards etc.  However they all cost money and many of the posts advocating the mandatory installation of sprinkling systems seem to ignore that reality. 
 

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Ugly, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Some must like it it if a hotel deliberately chooses to surface mount steel pipework all over the room

Some may think putting lipstick on a pig makes it more beutiful but common sense tells you otherwise. 

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

When I said the electrics were in pipework, I meant metal plumbing pipes

I did not say the electrics were in pipework.  I said plumbing pipework.  I had electric done that had to be encased in PVC but that had nothing to do with the installation of a plumbing network to install a sprinkling system.  That would be far bigger and uglier. 

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I was in a hotel in Udon last week where electrics had been put in surface pipework and used as "Decor". Ball valves on the wall lights etc !!!

Must admit, not to my taste.

Yes we added security cameras to our home.  The only alternative was exterior wiring inside PVC.  Cable TV was added.  Hole was drilled from the ceiling with wire inside a PVC conduit to conceal it.  

Plumbing pipes.  Great if installed when facility is under construction.  Difficult, expensive, and likely very ugly as a retrofit. 

2 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

Why would anything be required on exterior walls?  Buildings already have water and sewer lines inside and between floors and if new holes required it is not that hard to drill them.

Yes they do, however i am not sure that they are adequate in terms of flow to support a sprinkling system.  Also those water lines are already hidden inside the walls.  To hang a sprinkler it would likely require the plumbing to be exposed.  You sure cant connect a fitting to a pipe through a 4 inch hole in the wall or ceiling.  The existing pipes would have to be cut with some connector and pipe leading to the sprinklers.  

Even assuming that the retrofit could be accomplished there is still the issue of $$$.  Who is going to pay for all of this. 

7 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Between lesser aesthetics and burning to death, I'll take the former, thank you.

Well I agree with you regarding aesthetics and burning to death. However, this is Thailand.  I seriously doubt that any retrofit here would be as aesthetically pleasing as done in another country. One way or another, sprinkling systems cost money.  That money comes from someplace.  If it is an apartment complex or hotel, they have set their rates in the past based on the capital they invested in the project, not with the anticipation of building a large sinking fund to pay for future major sprinkling system costs.  If it is a condo, well now you have to get the approval of all of the condo owners for that retrofit.  Once you have secured enough owners to authorize the retrofit, the tricky part comes.  Getting the money from each condo owner to fund the project. 

There are many worthwhile projects here in Thailand and elsewhere.  Improving the roads, traffic lights, and enforcement of traffic rules would likely save far more lives than those lost to fires.  With that said, it is the same problem.  $$$ and will.  I might like to force all the people in Thailand to not throw trash outside their homes, on the street or burn rubbish but that ain't going to happen either. 

3 hours ago, lopburi3 said:

Why would they need to do that?  Pipe can easily be attached to ceilings and walls.  Much easier to fix a leak if exposed and much less change of driving a nail through it.

So you would propose having pipes affixed to the exterior walls and ceiling.  Yes, you could do that but consider aesthetically what that would do to the hotel or condo.  Also lets say the building is 5 to 10 stories.  Just exactly how do you propose getting the water line from each story if it is not drilled through the ceiling.