Laserface posted:

Because if you make an engine that tops out at 110kmh it is A)super slow to get to that max speed and B) running at maximum output for long stretches of time (highway) is going to cause a lot of catastrophic failures. Air Fuel ratio on a traditional engine allows you to run a very lean mixture at cruising speed leading to much better efficiency, whereas running your engine at maximum output would mean you need a richer mixture that results in increased fuel consumption.

on top of that you also need to be able to tow things, or fill the car with crap/people/both and then suddenly your engine that tops out at 110kmh with a single occupant is now overheating and running inefficiently when theres a family and a weeks worth of luggage in the car or a small boat trailer on the back. which then all comes back to the efficiency of the engine, higher load needing more accurate and rich fuel mixture, more chance of failure, etc.

Kommando posted:

Front page of The Courier Mail is reporting police have interviewed Ashas mother who admitted she deliberately burned Asha to get into Australia.

co worker picks up the paper and exclaims 'Oi fuckin knew it!'

Birb Katter posted:

It was a Serco guard that said she did it deliberately not the mother admitting guilt. You can see the hospital record in one of my earlier posts that says it was definitely not.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Weird that having people living permanently in a tent with no proper cooking facilities might lead to accidents.

BBJoey posted:

stop

Kommando posted:

We appear to have settled on 100 kilometres per hour as the upper limit to travelling speed when as vehicle technology improves we should be seeing an improvement to safety and safe operation of vehicles at high speed.
additionally fuel consumption can be engineered to be lowest at high speed, with aerodynamics and dynamic engine management for cruising.
One would hope that that over time freeway speeds might rise so people can get around faster.
I recall some European Nations (Switzerland in my experience) have raised speed limits to 120 and 130 km per hour.
limiting cars to 110 would further instill this arbitrary speed limit over a very long time. And i speculate would discourage research into car efficiency and safety at speed.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

People were asking about the Cuneen / ICAC thing a few pages back.

Here's a summary from last week of the events leading up to now, and here's one from Justinian from today about the latest events.

Also spoilers for the next season of Rake I guess.

quote:

Capital gains tax discount cut for superannuation funds under consideration by Government By political editor Chris Uhlmann and political reporter Eliza Borrello Updated about an hour ago

The Federal Government is contemplating halving the capital gains tax discount for superannuation funds, in its quest to find money to fund income tax cuts.

Key points:

Government mulls halving super fund capital gains tax from 33 per cent to 15 per cent
Finance Minister refuses to confirm the proposal
Industry Super Australia warns cuts could increase speculative short term investment
If it does, it would appear to be at odds with the Prime Minister's bold declaration to Parliament that: "Increasing capital gains tax is no part of our thinking whatsoever."

Malcolm Turnbull made the statement in a swingeing(sp) attack on Labor's policies to limit tax deductions on investment properties to new homes and to halve the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than a year from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. On capital gains, Mr Turnbull said the change would hammer investors because the tax on their real gain after inflation would be 70 per cent. "Nothing could be more calculated to put the brakes on investment, jobs and growth," he said.

But when questioned about the statement the Prime Minister's office said he was only ruling out the tax options proposed by Labor, which focus on property. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann refused to confirm the proposal when asked by the ABC. "It's a matter of public record that we have been looking right across the whole of the tax system to assess opportunities for improvements," he said. "The announcements, the specific announcements will of course be made when we have finished that work. I'm not going to add to the speculation."

How can we take Turnbull seriously?: Opposition hits back

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said the Government could not be trusted on tax reform if the Prime Minister said one thing in the afternoon and his staff said something different hours later. Mr Bowen said Mr Turnbull's character should be questioned over the turnaround.

What are capital gains?

Capital gains are the profits that a fund, or an individual, makes on the sale of an asset. Capital gains tax is imposed on those profits. Currently, superannuation funds are given a 33 per cent discount on the tax they need to pay on the profits they make on the sale of an asset (as long as it is held for more than 12 months). The Prime Minister is now looking to halve that, meaning while the tax rate remains the same, the discount given would fall to 15 per cent. "He cannot be trusted on tax," he said. "If he can't be trusted on something he says at Question Time at 2:00pm, how can his commitments about the GST be taken seriously? How can his commitments about any other matter of tax be taken seriously?"

Matthew Linden from the super fund Industry Super Australia warned against a halving of the capital gains tax discount for superannuation funds.

"It could give rise to an increase in speculative short term investment and that would be a bad thing for members," he said. The ABC has confirmed the Government is considering halving the super fund capital gains tax concession from 33 per cent to 15 per cent. Chris Richardson from Deloitte Access Economics said the move would not be a big money spinner for the Government. "We're now in a world where some of the bigger options in tax reform have been ruled out," he said. "The GST initially and Prime Minister now moving to hose down speculation in some other areas as well, that may mean that the Government is on the hunt for some small buckets of savings."

Laserface posted:

Because if you make an engine that tops out at 110kmh it is A)super slow to get to that max speed and B) running at maximum output for long stretches of time (highway) is going to cause a lot of catastrophic failures. Air Fuel ratio on a traditional engine allows you to run a very lean mixture at cruising speed leading to much better efficiency, whereas running your engine at maximum output would mean you need a richer mixture that results in increased fuel consumption.

on top of that you also need to be able to tow things, or fill the car with crap/people/both and then suddenly your engine that tops out at 110kmh with a single occupant is now overheating and running inefficiently when theres a family and a weeks worth of luggage in the car or a small boat trailer on the back. which then all comes back to the efficiency of the engine, higher load needing more accurate and rich fuel mixture, more chance of failure, etc.


I dont think anyone is arguing that, Im not. Being a pedestrian is not a right to throw away your concern for your own personal safety though and just take right of way without a second thought, because as we have discussed, not all pedestrians or drivers are paying attention.

Birb Katter posted:

Article on Dutton saying injuries were deliberate

Michymech posted:

Big surprise just like the rest of the poo poo that you spew out this is also very wrong, go learn how car engines work before making comments like this

Zenithe posted:

See also, water unsafe to drink until boiled.

xPanda posted:

I think you have to boil water for young babies no matter the source. But of course that doesn't mean that Nauru water isn't undrinkable anyway - no way to determine from that statement.

xPanda posted:

I think you have to boil water for young babies no matter the source. But of course that doesn't mean that Nauru water isn't undrinkable anyway - no way to determine from that statement.

Birb Katter posted:

So Dutton is now implying that Asha's mother deliberately threw boiling water on her

xPanda posted:

I think you have to boil water for young babies no matter the source. But of course that doesn't mean that Nauru water isn't undrinkable anyway - no way to determine from that statement.

quote:

You should always boil water to make powdered formula milk, whatever age your baby is. This is because hot water is needed to kill any bacteria in the powdered milk. However, once your baby is six months old, you can give her a separate drink of water straight from the tap.

HookShot posted:

A Saucy Bratwurst certainly is arguing that, and that's who my post was aimed at.

Yeah, you should be careful as a pedestrian because sometimes drivers aren't paying attention, but if they hit you in a crossing, it's still their fault.

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

If you are driving safely and to the law a d someone walks in front of you cause you banned being able to hear a car cause you are a weenie and it intimidates you, its not your fault.

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

If you are driving safely and to the law a d someone walks in front of you cause you banned being able to hear a car cause you are a weenie and it intimidates you, its not your fault.

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

If you are driving safely and to the law a d someone walks in front of you cause you banned being able to hear a car cause you are a weenie and it intimidates you, its not your fault.

Laserface posted:

Explain why or gently caress off, oval office.

Birb Katter posted:

Laserface posted:

Because if you make an engine that tops out at 110kmh it is A)super slow to get to that max speed and B) running at maximum output for long stretches of time (highway) is going to cause a lot of catastrophic failures. Air Fuel ratio on a traditional engine allows you to run a very lean mixture at cruising speed leading to much better efficiency, whereas running your engine at maximum output would mean you need a richer mixture that results in increased fuel consumption.

on top of that you also need to be able to tow things, or fill the car with crap/people/both and then suddenly your engine that tops out at 110kmh with a single occupant is now overheating and running inefficiently when theres a family and a weeks worth of luggage in the car or a small boat trailer on the back. which then all comes back to the efficiency of the engine, higher load needing more accurate and rich fuel mixture, more chance of failure, etc.

A Spoiled Brat posted:

If people walk out before looking its their own fault they get hit.

Kommando posted:

This is good.

ive shown this to the staff and now there's this polarised argument between those who believe the doctor and those that are doubting.
key arguments are 'the doctor is unlikely to be biased while the Serco guard is'
'was the doctor there in the tent? was the guard? was anyone? how can you know?'
"kids burn themselves with hot water on stoves, and in those conditions it makes sense to believe a kid could burn themselves "
" but this will cause people to harm their kids to get into Australia."
"3% body is a lot/not a lot "

Yessssssssssss.

Frogmanv2 posted:

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

burned

MonoAus posted:

I don't think anybody is really debating this in good faith but;

I think this is what Laserface is saying: Pedestrians should look before they cross the road to avoid injury not because they are legally bound to.. They should look because drivers may break the law and run them over.

What everyone else is saying: Motorists are always at fault if a pedestrian is hit at a crossing. Cars should travel through crossings at a speed at which they could stop at a moments notice. If you see a pedestrian standing at the side of the road at a crossing, you must stop for them. If a pedestrian runs/jumps in front of a car as it is passing or not a crossing, this is a different situation.

Both statements are true, I'm not sure why you're arguing about this.