willedoo

It's the same size wheel as the An-225. They might want it back if they're going to fix the 225.

This post has nothing to do with helmets, but it involves part of my Antonov collection so it's sort of related. Today I solved a mystery regarding this wheel I've had in one of my sheds for a few years now. Someone originally told me it was an An-22 nose wheel, but all the photographs I've looked at online didn't match. This afternoon I asked Google AI what size the An-22 nose wheel is and it gave a larger size (1450 x 580) than the wheel I have (1270 x 510). I then clicked on the reference Google AI used and it led me to a pdf with just about all the information anyone would want about aircraft tyres. It turns out it's an An-124 main gear wheel, so after all this time I've finally identified it for sure. It seems unusual that a main gear wheel on the An-124 would be smaller than a nose wheel from an An-22, but not when you consider the An-124 has ten main gear wheels each side. With the 510 width it will stand up on it's own without falling over. I've got a fair bit of An-12 gear and some An-2 stuff, so now I can add a bit of An-124 gear to the list. Here's the tyre pdf for anyone interested: https://www.jupitor.co.jp/pdf/michelin_aircraft.pdf It's one example where Google AI was more productive than the old non AI search engine. The standard search engine would most likely only find the tyre size if it was mentioned in a phrase or sentence, but AI was able to pinpoint the data in a data sheet.

ome, in those days I reckon they wouldn't have had to wait until late afternoon to come up with a story like that. One of my earliest memories of the RSL is going to a dawn service with my dad when I was about seven years old. They were as full as a Cribb Island bus by eight thirty in the morning, and playing up like second hand lawnmowers. I just sat there quite bemused by it all. I think a fair bit of rum was involved. They were singing and cooeeing and one digger was playing the drums using butter knives on those old tin chairs they used to have back in those days.

This might be a bit off topic for this thread but it does involve tiers of government, so I've put it here to save starting a thread for one post. I'm wondering whether the state government has been getting some feedback via their member's electorates regarding recent land valuations and their potential effect on council rates. About a month back I received my new valuation from the state government, an increase of $80,000 above the last valuation. At least it was better than the one before which led to a 30% increase in council rates. Yesterday I received what was titled a 'maintenance valuation' wiith the new valuation taking it back to what it was previously, eg: less the recent $80,000 increase. There was no explanation why they had changed the valuation and in thirty eight years of owning the property, it's the first time I've ever had a valuation decrease. I've also never heard of anyone else in the district ever getting a decrease. My best guess is the state government is very aware of the cost of living stress in the community, and taking into account recent voting intention shifts around the country, they are keen to maintain their vote base and stay in the job. Meanwhile, the local council has had councilors doing community meetings to inform the public that they're broke and have a one billion budget shortfall over ten years and will have to cut spending by 100 million per year for ten years. They're saying the shortfall is caused by the way administrations have handled depreciation over the years. What they are not mentioning is that they've been breaking their necks over the last few years to become another Gold Coast and have been overspending on projects that make the place look flash but have no real practical use. Rate revenue earns them 350 million per year of which 180 million goes to paying council staff. They have 1,800 employees; 800 get their hands dirty, 1,000 sit behind desks. It's likely we'll be getting rate rises so it's possible the state government has looked at the state of council finances and decided to wind back the valuations to avoid a double whammy on ratepayers. I wish the state government's local government department would put the cleaners through the local councils. They've given them too much autonomy in this state over the years and they're out of control. What's happened is that winding back valuations has blown council's excuse for a rate increase. They will have to increase rates considering they're broke, so that's probably the purpose of fessing up to the financial situation at public meetings, as they will have to hit us with a considerable rate increase without a corresponding valuation increase to blame it on as they normally do. The rates are calculated on the property valuation but the council has the discretion to alter the cents in the dollar rate if they choose to.

Then there's Mario in The Wog Boy - "They say I know f*ck nothing. But I know f*ck all!"

Government ownership of assets is not the sole love of Laborites. Plenty of conservative voters bemoan the loss of public assets. But I see your point that some Labourites wouldn't be happy with a Labor government selling it.

ok, I googled whether the sale of the last 50% was legislated and it was legislated in 1995 under the Commonwealth Bank Sale Act. Short answer, it was already legally locked in before Howard took over in March 1996.. Blaming Howard for it is a bit of a stretch don't you think. If Howard wanted to save it, it would have been near impossible to draft legislation, pass it through parliament and enact it all in twelve short weeks.

Nev can you provide some links that clarify whether Howard took that decision on his own bat or whether it was already locked in by Keating. Reason I ask is that most references I can find say that the sale occurred shortly after Keating's defeat (about 3 months after) when Howard was in office but is attributed to Keating. Labor had planned and set up the sale of the third tranche and it would have sold if Keating had won the 1996 election. Here's a question: was the sale of the third tranche already legislated when Howard took office. It's a bit hard to find accurate information on it.

I grew up on a wheat farm but certainly wouldn't like to be doing it these days. Dryland cropping was always a gamble with nature, but a lot more so these days with high input costs. A mate of mine recently sold his farm and retired to town. It was only a small place, 700 acres of cultivation, and he would plant the whole place to barley if he got a favourable season, and no summer crop at all. He was more of an opportunity farmer. Both he and his wife worked off farm and they would plant the whole block out if they got the rain, or if not, just rely on their off farm job income. Sometimes they would go two or three years without a crop in dry times. Back when we were kids, that block supported a family of four kids but you'd need two or three times that acerage to do it now. Most farms in that district have all been amalgamated into bigger holdings now. They were all just separate soldier settler blocks when I was there.

There's always necessary exceptions to that. Gun laws is just one of them. There's plenty of others.

There are a few examples of the unfairness of retrospectivity in leglislation. The various state's cultural heritage acts are an example. People in one state were immediately criminalised for something that's legal in other states due to introduced leglislation being retrospective.

One of the Beetoota Advocate's satirical headlines, referring to grandfathering of leglislation: ' Labor To Finally Even The Playing Field For Younger Australians By Stopping Future Generations From Using The Tax Loopholes That Boomers Will Be Allowed To Keep Using'.

Just to clarify the above post, I'm not suggesting the Government has suddenly dreamed up these changes as a knee jerk reaction to current polling. I'm sure they would have long been there on the backburner as alternative policy, well before the election. Like a wish list to try to introduce when the time was right. But I doubt they went into last year's election denying they would introduce these changes, while knowing all along they were going to.

That's always possible, but I really doubt they went to the election intending to deceive voters. Stemming the exit of a lot of their younger voters has more to do with the broken word. For Labor, going back on their word is probably seen as the least damaging option compared to losing a lot of Gen X and younger voters. Their polling is sending them a message that it's not only the coalition that stands to lose by the surge in support for One Nation. The intergenerational inequity they are talking about constantly these days existed before the last federal election when they ruled out the changes they are now introducing. At that election One Nation polled about 6% and a lot has changed since then with almost one in four voters expressing support in polls. Among males in their thirties, that number rises to one in three. That's a lot for Labor to digest and the political expediency of stemming the flow outweighs the damage caused by breaking their word in their way of thinking. They're smart enough to know they can't stay in power without the vote of aspirational young people, and the budget is a big gamble that they're hoping won't backfire on them. Time will tell on that one.

Not my saying, just quoting one.

As the saying goes, socialism works great until you run out of someone else's money.

I can see the theory the poster made in the last point of the post, eg: "If One Nation had a candidate for Stafford, the right would have won this seat". No doubt O.N. preferences would have helped the LNP, but to get them over the line a One Nation candidate would have had to take almost 10% of the Labor vote and direct all those preferences to the LNP. Condsidering Labor already lost more than 4% of their vote to the LNP government, another 10% going to One Nation would be a big ask. It's possible, but still a big ask. I would think there would have been a certain amount of Labor voters prepared to vote ON if a candidate had run, but in lieu of that had decided to stick with Labor rather than vote LNP. The Labor opposition leader was on radio this morning praising their win and saying the result was a big wake-up call for the LNP government. Talk about a state of altered reality. Labor retained a Labor held city seat, but suffered a more than 4% swing away from them to the LNP government. Also it's very rare in by-elections for the sitting government to get a swing toward it.

I had to laugh at this AI overview of parallel parking: 'The 5-Step Parallel Parking Method 1. Find a spot: Look for a space that is at least 1.5 times the length of your vehicle.' Where I live, to do that you'd have to either have a Fiat Bambino or something smaller, or leave town and go somewhere else to look for a park.

That's a good rule to stick by. It applies well to buying motors. You see a lot of cheap junk motors on the market but when you do the mental arithmetic of doing them up, it just doesn't stack up to buying something already up and running. I think some people buy cheap flogged out motors with missing parts thinking they've got a bargain, but when they price the work and bits required, soon realise they've bought a boat anchor.

Does anyone remember seeing Elvis's Cadillac when it toured in 1968. I saw it on the top story carpark at Myers in Toowoomba. Some other cars were there on display as well, but I don't remember who they belonged to.

Another thing that works well is salt and vinegar spread over a few applications. Depending on how chrome work has been done, with some of it you can drop it in hydrochloric acid for a short time before rinsing and that will take it back to it's original nickel plating. A couple of years ago I aged a replica medieval hand and a half sword using salt and vinegar on the metal work. It took a few applications and a couple of weeks but worked well. It worked on the brass pommel and hilt as well and made it look a few hundred years old rather than a cheap replica. First thing with brass is to determine with a magnet if it really is brass and not steel with a coating. Next thing, a lot of that shiny brass is due to a clear lacquer coating, so that must be removed before ageing. Wood is the easy part, just sand off the offending coating then beat the wood up with a screwdriver, hammer or whatever, then coat it with a stain more rustic than the original. I've used dark tan leather dye on wood for good effect in ageing.

I don't know much about the Democrats but had the impression they lost their way a bit from what they originally intended to be.

Some potential wheels - these two whitewalled Road King wheels are a bit flash for a ratbike but one thing I have a lot of experience at is turning perfectly good equipment into a pile of rust. I must admit the climate here helps a lot. The Heritage softail wheel with no tyre is already nice and aged and will most likely go on the front (when I have something that can be described as a front end, that is).

They used to call them the fairies at the bottom of the garden party, they obviously being those that had no truck with Don's mob.

Better than finding a half eaten pie, that's for sure.