Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: Nev.. on 8 Feb 2010 02:48 G-S wrote: > Marts wrote: >> G-S wrote... >> >>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've been >>> in private hospital. >> >> So, when you were in private hospital, not one cent of the attending >> doctors' >> bills were paid for on Medicare and the private insurer made up the >> rest, plus >> the gap payment that you'd have to make out of your own pocket? > > I have no idea what percentage of the doctors bills were paid by > medicare (some I assume) however that money went to the doctor and not > to me. > >> (the hospital stay itself would've been fully covered by the private >> health >> insurance, presuming that you have top cover). > > I do have top cover. > >> Or, if you go to the optometrist (if you or your family have to wear >> glasses), >> that you paid cash for the consultation? Most optometrists bulk bill on >> Medicare, but slug you heaps on the hardware... > > I paid cash for my last several eye examinations, I don't got to an > optometrist and I can't be stuffed getting a referral from my GP to > claim part of it on medicare. He does a prescription as part of the eye > exam. You don't need a referral to visit an optometrist. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: theo on 8 Feb 2010 02:50 On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: > theo wrote: > > That is part of the problem. You get the person you least object to, > > rather than the person you want. > > It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough votes they > win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. If they > can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your > preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you get the > person you want? You can't vote for the person you want. You can only vote for the people on the ticket. A few (very few) people in the party decide which person gets on the ticket, so you may as well vote for the party. Your local person, who you voted in to look after you, will certainly vote whichever way the party says, otherwise they don't get preselection next time. If you think they can follow their own agenda, or their stated moral stance, just look at Garrett. The problem with our current system, as I see it, is that it disempowers large portions of the population. As shown in the recent past, a new party can get 30% of the vote and fugg-all seats, so no representation. In a proportional system they would have got 30% of the seats. The other problem is that a very small change in voting can make a huge difference in representation. E.g. if 51% of each electorate votes for one party then the other party gets zero seats and the 49% who voted for the losers get no representation. A 2% swing in every electorate would see the reverse. It's silly but contrived to keep a possible third party from getting any kind of foothold. Even the Senate elections ar not proportionate after the primary votes are counted. Deals can be made for the losers preferences to help, as GS wrote, another party win a seat they would not otherwise have had. Theo
From: Andrew on 8 Feb 2010 02:57 On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:41:50 +0000, hippo wrote: > GWD wrote: >> >> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:39:07 GMT, Andrew wrote: >> >> >On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:02:24 +1100, Nev.. wrote: >> > >> >> Andrew wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:06:44 +1100, G-S wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Andrew wrote: >> >>>>> If you buy one, it is because you want those two things, or you >> >>>>> want people to think you want those two things. Either way, >> >>>>> you're a hoon. Even if you never do a wheelie on your litre-class >> >>>>> sports bike, and you always stick to speed limits, you're still a >> >>>>> hoon. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> I have to disagree with that. >> >>>> >> >>>> If a person never speeds, never wheelies, never breaks the law and >> >>>> rides a litre-class sports bike they are NOT a hoon. >> >>>> >> >>>> They no doubt want people to think they are a hoon (or the 2nd >> >>>> coming of M Doohan) but that doesn't make them one. >> >>>> >> >>>> At best they are FAIL at hoon... >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> G-S >> >>> >> >>> Would you settle for 'wannabe' hoon? Nobody buys a sports bike for >> >>> its touring capability, or its baggage handling, or its ground >> >>> clearance. The fact that the rider doesn't behave like a hoon >> >>> doesn't alter the motivation for the purchase. >> >> >> >> Most of my motivation for buying highpowered sports bikes has been >> >> being comfort and laziness. Whats going to happen is you're going >> >> to have to define sports bike and hoon to within a very narrow >> >> definition and the real world will trip you over with diversity. So >> >> lets start by defining 'sportsbike'. >> >> >> >> Nev.. >> >> '08 DL1000K8' >> > >> >OK. Let's start with 'The Most Sporting Bike Class Defined By The >> >Manufacturer'. For example, Kawasaki make bikes they classify as >> >'Sport' and 'Supersport'. We take the 'Supersport' category and we get >> >the ZX-6R Ninja, the ZX-10R Ninja and the ZX-14. OK, Suzuki next. They >> >have bikes they classify as 'Sport / Sport Touring' and 'Supersport'. >> >We take the 'Supersport' category and we get the GSX-R600, the >> >GSX-R750, the GSX- R1000 and the Hayabusa. >> > >> >I'm happy with all of those (actually, I really would be). Want to try >> >Ducati? They have categories called 'SportClassic' and 'Superbike'. >> >And if you do the obvious and select 'Superbike', you get the 848, >> >1098R, 1198 and 1198S. >> > >> >I could go on but I think Nev.. is snoring. Anyone interested in >> >offering a contradictory example? >> >> Well at the risk of curing Nev's insomnia even more, I think you have >> given an excellent run-down on how Manufacturers see their products, >> and from that point of view I agree with you. I would be interested in >> an owner's definition of a sports bike, and which bikes fit that >> category. As I see it, there are bikes that are enjoyable that go fast, >> and others that just go fast. All are sold to mere mortals, a lot of >> whom don't seem to know what they are getting themselves into (count me >> in that group). What picture should be in my head when I'm talking >> about a sports bike? >> >> > The rear mirror image receding at a more rapid rate than normal? The > motorcycle proceeding ditto? The motorcycle receding at a more rapid rate than normal? That exactly describes my savings account for a *real* sportsbike. -- Regards Andrew
From: Andrew on 8 Feb 2010 03:03 On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:07:17 +1100, GWD wrote: > > Well at the risk of curing Nev's insomnia even more, I think you have > given an excellent run-down on how Manufacturers see their products, and > from that point of view I agree with you. I would be interested in an > owner's definition of a sports bike, and which bikes fit that category. > As I see it, there are bikes that are enjoyable that go fast, and others > that just go fast. All are sold to mere mortals, a lot of whom don't > seem to know what they are getting themselves into (count me in that > group). What picture should be in my head when I'm talking about a > sports bike? > > -- > Regards > George De Lacey Orright, howsybout this? The more closely the 'sports bike' resembles whatever it is Valentino Rossi is racing these days, the more likely it is to be *real* sports bike. There ya go: a continuum. R1 at one end and HD at the other. Simple. -- Regards Andrew
From: G-S on 8 Feb 2010 04:55
Nev.. wrote: > theo wrote: >> On Feb 6, 5:48 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>> G-S wrote: >> >>>> So I'd like to see a government with proportional voting and without >>>> preferences, because preferences distort the result so that the largest >>>> proportion of voters chosen representative doesn't get elected. >>> Not true at all. I think you don't know how preferential voting works. >>> The preferences give you a second chance, and a third chance, and a >>> fourth chance. If your preferred candidate didn't get enough votes to >>> win the seat outright, why wouldn't you want your second choice getting >>> your vote, and if they can't win, why wouldn't you want your third >>> choice to get your vote? The least voted against candidate wins. >> >> That is part of the problem. You get the person you least object to, >> rather than the person you want. > > It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough votes they > win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. If they > can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your > preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you get the > person you want? > Well you might not, nothing can assure that. But it would make certain that a candidate who didn't have the support of the most people wouldn't win (as the fundy I mentioned in another post managed). I think that's more important (you may not). G-S |