CaptHaddock

After you have attached the kindle to the computer and got it to recognize the kindle as a usb device, if you then detach it without unmounting it, the usb software on the kindle may not successfully do the handshaking the next time to connect them. The solution is to safely unmount the kindle before detaching it and/or reboot one or both of the computer and kindle.

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

I have had one on one instruction, and I think I have a good ear for the tones. I admit to have difficulty reproducing them consistently. I also have never been able to sing, maybe has something to do with it.

Even took a vocal class (Indian classical). The basic swara or scale is "sa re ga ma pa dha ni sa" (just like "do re mi fa so la...").

I could not get past "sa" without a quavering screech and Guru told me not to return!

How many hours of one-on-one instruction have you had? What were the qualifications of your Thai teacher? Did he/she have bachelor's and/or master's degrees in Thai language? Had he/she received specific training in teaching Thai to foreigners? Had he/she taught other foreigners who succeeded in becoming fluent in Thai and whom you met? Did he/she correct your mispronunciations every single time you got it wrong? Did you practice reading out loud to the teacher? Could your Thai teacher correctly answer questions like these (which most Thais cannot):

1. What is the effect of ห นำ on the pronunciation of the syllable?

2. What is the difference between the nouns of the form ความ + verb and การ + verb?

Being able to sing has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with pronouncing the Thai tones correctly. Speaking Thai is not singing. If you practice correctly and get correction from a qualified teacher you can certainly learn to pronounce the tones correctly and reliably. But it's hard to find a qualified teacher. Most of the "schools" teaching Thai to foreigners are junk with unqualified teachers.

Learning the tones is a little like learning to ride a bicycle. The kid struggles to stay upright and falls over repeatedly seeming not to make progress. But then the kid gets it in a fairly short period of time and is suddenly able to wobble along. That was my experience with tones. The difference though, is that many kids are able to learn to ride a bike on their own. I think few Westerners are able to learn the tones on their own. I certainly have not met any.

So, yes it's hard, maybe harder than we anticipated. The way you accomplish a hard thing is to persist and make sure you have feedback to know when it is right and when it is wrong so that you can progress.

I can only comment on my own experiences. My native language is English. The second language I learnt was Spanish and having learnt Spanish, then went on to learn French, Portuguese and Italian all of which I found considerably easier no doubt because of the Spanish. In the late 90's I came to Thailand and learnt Thai which was much more difficult than all of the previous languages. After which I learnt Mandarin which seemed much easier than the Thai for a number of reasons, one of which I suspect was the previous exposure to the grammar and structure of Asian languages.

Incidentally I am also a musician. In the 80's and most of the 90s myself and several colleagues were amongst an elite group of session players that played on many of both decades biggest hit records on both sides of the Atlantic - all were self taught, so the previous posters assumptions that you need competent instruction to be competent is erroneous. Actually my Thai improved immensely when I stopped taking lessons and taught myself.

That's interesting to hear about the self-taught musicians. All the professional musicians I have known were formally trained, but it's a big world.

Did you learn to read and write Mandarin? I find it hard to believe that anyone would rate fully learning Mandarin (including literacy) is easier than Thai.

And how good is your Thai? Can you read and write? Do you read Thai books at university level? Do Thais understand you? Do you understand them? How large is your vocabulary? Passed the ป 6 exam?

I recognize that there are some people who can become fully fluent in Thai without formal study, but they would be few. Chris Baker, for instance, says that he never studied Thai formally, but he had already mastered several languages including Russian in university and then married a Thai academic. So, he both had resources and the skills to use them. But that's not most people.

The overwhelming fact is that most Western expats never get even to a basic level of competence in Thai. Thai is harder for us to learn than French, but the reason most Westerners fail is that they are not sufficiently motivated and they don't follow a course of study that is likely to be successful, i.e. university-level study or the equivalent. Attempting to teach yourself from books and tapes is a recipe for failure even if there is an occasional counter-example although I myself have not met any.

My post was in response to the previous poster who has evidently learned Japanese, but cannot master the Thai tones well enough to be understood. My point for him if he has failed to learn the Thai tones it is not because learning them is impossible. Nor is it because he lacks aptitude. So, it must be because he has gone about it in the wrong way. My guess is that he hasn't had competent correction and if he did he would get the tones down. If he sticks to whatever method he has been using to date he is likely to continue to fail.

Exactly. As I learned more on yomi (Chinese reading of a character) I started reading and understanding words I had never seen before. I have been at Japanese a long time, passed the Level II proficiency exam, and sometimes can "pass" for native on a simple phone call. However one thing is this. I have never had any problem making myself understood using whatever I attempted to say at any particular level based on what I had mastered at the time.

Constrast to Thai where no matter how I try, I have Thais scratching their heads in complete mosunderstanding as I get the tones wrong, even with simple phrases I think I have mastered. Frustrating and difficult.

I don't think Japanese is that complex. I have met "beach boys" on Guam who have at most two years High School Japanese with impressive skills, even dialect. They cannot read or write Japanese at all but became proficient solely from years of interacting with Tourists and scamming chicks. Pretty surprising actually.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't get the tones right because you have never had one-on-one instruction from a qualified Thai teacher who corrects you every time you make a pronunciation mistake (or grammar or usage, etc.) No one else, including my wife, corrects my pronunciation consistently. Only teachers do that.

Learning Thai to me is like learning to play the piano: it takes more time to master than most expect and you must have competent instruction. There are a few examples of musicians who claimed to have learned to play the piano entirely on their own, like Jerry Lee Lewis for example, but, even if true, they would be very few.

Similarly, most Westerners here fail to achieve anything near fluency in Thai, but then few of them study seriously with a competent teacher. For some unknown reason many of them expect to pick it up from books, tapes, and casual conversation.

I don't claim to be fluent in Thai yet, but the Thais can understand me. I recently had an Uber driver tell me how surprised he was that he could understand every word I said as we had a long conversation about politics and economics.

As for the relative difficulty of learning Japanese for a native English speaker, I would guess that it isn't the spoken language that makes it among the most difficult to learn, but the ideogram system. At any rate the Japanese learners I have known all complained about the kanji, never pronunciation. Of course, it makes no sense to compare languages without their writing systems. Unless the student aspires merely to be a beach boy.

Zero. The SS child benefit is paid when the parent with SS earnings has died. The SS Primary Insurance Amount is the pension that the recipient receives based on his history of covered earnings and is not affected by the number of dependents.

Realistically, I don't think any documentation must be submitted when declaring self-employment income at that amount from a foreign country. I could be wrong though.

Nice to be reminded that fraud is always an option.

Is my Thai wife (legal, paper marriage in Thailand) eligible for dependent benefits from SS after I pass away?

Probably not, but there is another thread addressing exactly that question that you can search for.

An option would be taking out an annuity through a US insurance company. You could probably earn about 3.5% per year in interest. When you annuitize the policy though, you would not be entitled to the FEI exclusion on your accrued interest although you would owe no tax on the principal. It's better than paying the 13% off the top to get SSA as Sheryl mentions. It sounds to me as though you would get the minimum SSA benefit unless you earned a lot during your first 28 quarters. Another option would be starting a portfolio in exclusively income securities and having the 5-6% that you could earn on them reinvested until you retire. See the Income Securities Investor website or LLF Advisors in NYC. Good luck.

Private annuities are a lot less attractive than the SS annuity, but they are still worth considering since, unlike an investment portfolio, you can't outlive them. The only type of annuity worth considering is the single payment immediate annuity or its cousin, longevity insurance. With an SPIA you pay the total premium today and start receiving a monthly payout beginning next month for life. These annuities are easy to compare and so are priced competitively. With a longevity insurance annuity you pay the total premium today and start receiving the monthly payouts at some time in the distant future, perhaps twenty years from now. Naturally they are a lot cheaper than an SPIA. Longevity insurance came out a few years ago and was not a popular product since few people are willing to wait so long for their return. I think The Hartford may still sell it and some other companies.

I have ended up living here my entire adult life so have never really had any expectation of receiving benefits from my government and enjoy not being stressed by trying to get something from them. The way things are going there is no guarantee you will get out what you put in so it might not be a bad idea to focus on a more self-reliant option, just in case.

The thoughts of a man who doesn't understand the basis of insurance. I think the OP however does grasp the benefits of SS.

If you have self-employed income or if you were to go to work for a US company in Thailand, you would be able to pay the payroll tax and get your additional quarters. However, as a self-employed person you will be liable for both the employee's and employer's portion of the SS contribution for about 15% including medicare tax. This comes off directly your income from the business, not your modified adjusted gross income. So, it's expensive compared to what you paid as an employee.

If I were in your shoes though I would consider moving back to the US to work after retiring here. Three more years of SS covered earnings would give you the additional twelve quarters you need to get benefits and then you could move back to Thailand for the rest of your retirement if you liked.

The other option would be to marry an American eligible for SS benefits and collect on that person's earnings record.

The Saudis are idiots. This problem is completely avoidable. They have to redesign the space for effective crowd control. Engineers understand what causes crowds to panic. A redesign could eliminate the cause.

Against data accumulated by a public institution that contradicts your half-baked claims, the best rebuttal you can come up with is that you know more because you have a degree? That's really the best you can do? Sheesh.

"I don't care if you claim you're qualified! I've never studied it but I know what I'm talking about! There are lots of other people who haven't studied it either, and they agree with me!"

Great position to argue from.

About the brilliance of that data accumulated by a public institution:

How many populist economic policies failed to consult a qualified economist?

How many education reforms left qualified teachers out of the loop while creating their policies?

I'm sure you can provide other such examples.

Do you think the data collected for those 4-levels of language difficulty were any different?

Thankfully they don't leave engineers out when building bridges or coming up with the building schedule.

Your mistake was that you should have studied theology where questions are indeed settled by authority. Not science. You seem to have missed a rather essential point.

Against data accumulated by a public institution that contradicts your half-baked claims, the best rebuttal you can come up with is that you know more because you have a degree? That's really the best you can do? Sheesh.

To me this is BS,shine man wants it all for him self. Sorry but I am a republican,and that is my assessment of him.

Shine man? Huh?

http://www.shinemanfoundation.org/

Anyway, no you're wrong, this comes from a set formula and yes gas prices are way down.

Of course I'm going to be on SS someday and will want to see COLA increases as well. I'm sure they will continue in future years.

Don't count on it. Years ago we got a decent increase in COLA till they rejigged the formula. Yes gas prices are way down but what a crock of a way to make a statement as everything else including food, services car repairs, insurances, rents and health care for most are way up. Rents especially as most people cannot afford homes. The cost of living is at zero according to the government and our savings in the bank are at zero interest. We are the zero senior generation. This whole mess was orchestrated by big banks and overextended borrowers and in debt over their head governments and now we seniors must pay with our savings what a mess. Who borrows mostly from banks well of course governments that are broke and their big business buddies to buy back their own stock or their competitors. We are all a victim of the largest government swindle on the planet.

Which governments borrow from banks? Not the US govt nor any state govt. The financial crisis of 2008 arose from an excess of private, not government, debt.

If the language you want to learn is related to a language you know, then it will be easier for you. <---This is regarding learning a second language

It isn't innately an easy language, it's just easier for you.

If there are lots of good learning materials for a certain language, then it's going to be easier to learn that language than another language for which there are few materials for learning the language.

If there are many non-native speakers who speak a language that you'd like to learn, then you will find a higher level of tolerance from native speakers of that language listening to learner mistakes. If it's a language with few non-native speakers, then native speakers will be less tolerant. That can certainly make it harder to learn that particular language, <---This is regarding learning a second language

but again, it's not innately easy or hard.

If a language seems really complex in one way (for example, the pronunciation), then it's going to be easier in another way. <---This is regarding learning a second language

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds. It can be intimidating to hear and to analyze these unfamiliar sounds. Certainly some languages have more complex sound systems, while other languages have complex syntax. But it all balances out. There is no language with a crazy complex phonemic system and bizarre syntax and wacky morphology... if it's hard in one way, it will be easy in another. <---This is regarding learning a second language

I read an interesting paper on how a complex phonemic system actually allows for more "mispronunciation". That is, if you have 10 vowels and you mispronounce 1, you've got an error rate of 10%. If you've only got 5 vowels and mispronounce 1, then you've got a 20% error rate. This is a simplistic overview of the paper, but I think you get the point that being complex in one way doesn't mean that it's a harder language overall. <---This is regarding learning a second language

M.A. or no, this is a confused opinion. When you claim that all languages have the same complexity and therefore none are "innately" more difficult than any other, you are talking about the task a newborn faces in learning his mother language. I don't know if the claim of equal complexity is true or not, but the learning task that a newborn faces is irrelevant to the current discussion. We are talking about second language acquisition by an adult. From the point of view of a particular adult facing learning a new language not all languages are the same and how different it would be if he were an infant in that culture could hardly be less relevant.

I'm sorry to have confused you cap'n, but the opinion was mainly about learning a second language.

I have highlighted that above in red text so you don't miss it again.

Sadly, people who haven't a clue about linguistics or language believe that they have qualified opinions about it. "I don't know about machines, but that conveyor belt sure has a complex design."

To sum this up for you again:

Learning as an adult, the only factors that make a language easier or harder than another are:

#1: if it is related or not to a language you speak

#2: if native speakers accept the idea of non-natives learning it

Excluding point #2 above, if you are a monolingual native speaker of English, then it's just as hard for you do learn Swahili as it is to learn Japanese, Mongolian, and Quechua.

It's just a hard for a monolingual Japanese speaker to learn English as it is for you to learn Japanese. If we bring tolerance to non-natives into play as in point #2, that certainly makes a difference, but it isn't about the nature of the language. A video demonstrating how hard it is to learn such a language would be more accurate to show native speakers being intolerant to non-native speakers, rather than a demonstration of how complex the language is by its seemingly bizarre sounds.

Even after you delete the irrelevant claim that all languages have the same inherent complexity, your opinion, to the extent that it is coherent, is not supported by the data. The Foreign Service Institute of the US State Department has been training US diplomats in a wide range of languages for decades. Their experience is that to train their students to the desired degree of proficiency (which they define) takes 2200 hours for Japanese, 1100 hours for Mongolian, and 900 hours for Swahili.

http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty

You have probably ignored completely reading and writing which are certainly not all equally difficult to learn and which would be an important part of most learners' goal of proficiency. For some unknown reason you are uniquely fixated upon the attitude of the natives as a major impediment in second language acquisition. The fact is, however, that most students of foreign languages do their learning in a classroom with a teacher, not on the street or out on the tundra among the Inuit hunters.

I am sure your mother is delighted with your degree, but it would be more impressive to me if you could demonstrate an ability to think critically and write clearly.

No language is harder than another. "Indonesian is easy, so kids start speaking at 2. But Japanese is so hard that children can't speak until they're 8." ←of course no such situation exists. Children learn to speak at the same time.

If the language you want to learn is related to a language you know, then it will be easier for you. It isn't innately an easy language, it's just easier for you.

If there are lots of good learning materials for a certain language, then it's going to be easier to learn that language than another language for which there are few materials for learning the language.

If there are many non-native speakers who speak a language that you'd like to learn, then you will find a higher level of tolerance from native speakers of that language listening to learner mistakes. If it's a language with few non-native speakers, then native speakers will be less tolerant. That can certainly make it harder to learn that particular language, but again, it's not innately easy or hard.

If a language seems really complex in one way (for example, the pronunciation), then it's going to be easier in another way.

I think it's really interesting that people think languages are innately easier or harder than others. I often hear people tell me how easy Indonesian is, and how hard Japanese is. It's all the same.

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds. It can be intimidating to hear and to analyze these unfamiliar sounds. Certainly some languages have more complex sound systems, while other languages have complex syntax. But it all balances out. There is no language with a crazy complex phonemic system and bizarre syntax and wacky morphology... if it's hard in one way, it will be easy in another.

Languages that have a smaller lexicon are going to use those words in very complex ways, and intonation is going to play a much bigger role than a language that can rely on a separate word to convey an idea.

I read an interesting paper on how a complex phonemic system actually allows for more "mispronunciation". That is, if you have 10 vowels and you mispronounce 1, you've got an error rate of 10%. If you've only got 5 vowels and mispronounce 1, then you've got a 20% error rate. This is a simplistic overview of the paper, but I think you get the point that being complex in one way doesn't mean that it's a harder language overall.

M.A. or no, this is a confused opinion. When you claim that all languages have the same complexity and therefore none are "innately" more difficult than any other, you are talking about the task a newborn faces in learning his mother language. I don't know if the claim of equal complexity is true or not, but the learning task that a newborn faces is irrelevant to the current discussion. We are talking about second language acquisition by an adult. From the point of view of a particular adult facing learning a new language not all languages are the same and how different it would be if he were an infant in that culture could hardly be less relevant.

All my replacement cards get forwarded without a problem by the mail forwarder I use in the US. I definitely do not want to let any financial institution know that I am in Thailand if I can help it. There is no upside for me in being straightforward and a huge downside.

Nobody is pooping diamonds. They are just facing political reality. Go ahead and nominate Sanders and then watch the most massive landslide in American history happen. With him on the losing end.

At least since McGovern walked away with a single state. The degree by which I would rather have Sanders as president compared to Hillary pales by comparison to the degree that I would rather have Hillary than any Republican.

She will be the nominee. Yes it's not too early to speculate about her VP pick. Sanders no way. Kasich no way even more so. Julian Castro. Maybe. He has charisma which she lacks but people would be concerned about the heartbeat thing as no foreign policy experience. Of those on the stage possibly OMalley. Boring but solid. I think more likely none of those. More like a big surprise.

I am not looking for a surprise VP pick on the Dem side. That's a desperation move for a one-down already candidate like McCain. Hillary would have more to lose than to gain. It would have to be someone with a track record, already vetted by the public, but without major negatives.

The Repubs will face the huge disadvantage of a first-time female presidential candidate who will definitely pull some Repub women because of the historical nature of the event. That's part of the reason she emphasized the Repub threat to Planned Parenthood. So, look for Rubio (on whom the billionaires are already settling) to pick a woman or a black or even a black woman.

Clinton was great, but Bernie Sanders was fantastic and he is very authentic. I doubt that Sanders can get the nomination, but he was impressive.

Clinton is well connected, knows the ropes and would make a great president.

I agree. They both did very well, I wonder if we will get a Sanders/Clinton or Clinton/Sanders ticket in the White House? Either would be preferable to the farce that is the Republican party.

I wonder ifthe american's in Thailand would pretend to be Canadians again if Trump/Bush got in hue hue hue

Clinton/Sanders isn't going to happen. If she gets nominated she won't have to appeal to the liberal wing anymore since they have nowhere else to go. It would make more sense to take someone like Webb who is ex-military and from the South to reassure the more conservative voters in the general election.

Actually, I was watching a post-debate CNN show and someone mentioned that Hillary should choose John Kasich as her running mate. That would be intriguing.

Clinton/Kasich is not going to happen either. That would put the Repubs a heartbeat away from packing the Court for the next 30 years. It will be something like Clinton/Webb vs Rubio/Carson or Rubio/Fiorina, either of which would be a gift to the Dems.

Clinton was great, but Bernie Sanders was fantastic and he is very authentic. I doubt that Sanders can get the nomination, but he was impressive.

Clinton is well connected, knows the ropes and would make a great president.

I agree. They both did very well, I wonder if we will get a Sanders/Clinton or Clinton/Sanders ticket in the White House? Either would be preferable to the farce that is the Republican party.

I wonder ifthe american's in Thailand would pretend to be Canadians again if Trump/Bush got in hue hue hue

Clinton/Sanders isn't going to happen. If she gets nominated she won't have to appeal to the liberal wing anymore since they have nowhere else to go. It would make more sense to take someone like Webb who is ex-military and from the South to reassure the more conservative voters in the general election.

I would couple lack of English skills together with next to no curiosity about The Rest Of The World is the cause.

There are 7 bn of us on the planet and +- 1,5 bn can speak English of which less that 700 mil are home language English speakers. As to your second comment, if you only have enough money to survive day to day it doesn't help to know about other countries as they could just as well be in another universe. Just for comparisons sake the average American travels to 6 US states in his/her live time and knows zip about the world, same same.

Despite my having been warned that those who aren't fluent in the English language aren't worth the bother to learn to speak Thai (or any other language which does not accommodate English as it's language of choice, come to that, particularly on the internet) I learned to speak Thai anyway. They were right. Those who are too idle/stupid to attempt to learn the INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE that is English, really aren't worth listening to. Unless you have a boundless capacity for drivel.

I hope your Thai is better than your English, which is unintelligible.

"Latest news from the Newspaper-That-Must-Not-Be-Named is that the land tax has been backburnered."

The Bangkok Post reported that also. Which newpaper's reporting were you referring to?

The mods are always reminding us that that very newspaper forbids TV to quote it or to post links to their stories. Sounds ridiculous of course, which is my point.

Maybe the Nation could start by apologizing for supporting Suthep's anti-democracy mob and the coup itself.