A fundamental flaw with bikes/cycles

[Joshua Putnam]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

> I was unaware of the internet Usenet community when Reagan was President.

Perhaps because internet and usenet are entirely separate concepts?

Usenet did not begin on the internet, and its structure reflects some of the idiosyncracies of the
systems where it began.

News hosts were not continuously networked together, they used dialup connections, slow ones at
that, and each host would pass along any articles that the next host hadn't seen yet. Posts
frequently arrived out of sequence, and the lag time between posting and being read could be days,
not minutes or hours.

The slow dialup connections are part of what led to the agreed quoting system, where a bare minimum
of context was provided by quoting, followed by the reply. Putting things in this order not only
maintains the temporal flow of the discussion, it forces the responding poster to *look* at the
bottom of the quoted material -- it's harder to accidentally include 100 lines of quoted material
above a one-line reply than it is below a one-line reply.

High-speed internet connections have made some of these reasons less relevant for a lucky few in the
developed world, but they're still issues for dialup-connected sites in less developed countries,
and for users with slower connections.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

 

[Doug Huffman]

"Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:MPG.194eff91c12f60a19896e3@localhost...
>
> Perhaps because internet and usenet are entirely separate concepts?
>
> Usenet did not begin on the internet, and its structure reflects some of the idiosyncracies of the
> systems where it began.
>

I hope that our correspondents note the truths in this thread. Bottom posting works with severe
editing of the quoted content. When many lines of quoted content are re-sent then top posting seems
to maintain the conversational flow (and should be cautionary to the other correspondents that BW is
being wasted).

The vast majority of internet *users* aren't familiar with the RFCs or with the evolution of the
'net. Indeed, some of the fundamental protocols are being forgotten (NTP, gopher, telnet). Just as
our language is being dumbed-down. I wrote "vast majority" and someone will likely quip 'I use
gopher everyday' - forgetting the value of an anecdote.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:28:53 -0600, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Don't do us any favors next time. Thanks for turning what could have been an interesting discussion
>regarding different bike design into a crappy discussion about where to type.

Okay then. Lack of respect for the people reading your posts duly noted, thus confirming image of
person posting merely for his own pleasure -- ie, wanking.

Bye!

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:43:12 GMT, "Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Speaking of etiquette, shouldn't this discussion on top-posting have it's own subject line, like
>"OT: No Top-posting"?

Technically speaking, it should. However, retaining context is much more important than that. And
you failed.

Jasper

 

[David Damerell]

Doug Huffman <[email protected]> wrote:
>I hope that our correspondents note the truths in this thread. Bottom posting works with severe
>editing of the quoted content.

I prefer to call correct posting style "interspersed" - "bottom posting", by analogy to "top
posting", is an equally defective style in large articles.

>The vast majority of internet *users* aren't familiar with the RFCs or with the evolution of
>the 'net.

Things are improving on Usenet. The influx of new users is now down to a level where those who are
not witless can see the existing standards and abide to them; this thread has just attracted the
current crop of idiots.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[David Damerell]

Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> brightened my day with his
>>Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Top posting is, IMO superior in all aspects for a well connected thread. Reason? I don't have to
>>>scroll down through heaps of repeat material to get to the pertinent point. When I hilite a post
>>>I see the new material there at the top.
>>This is why you should quote correctly.
>Sorry? Are you out of context or have I lost the thread despite the bottom posting ?

I have no idea what this is meant to mean.

>Look : I use a newsreader which constructs the thread using a tree view.

So do I. That doesn't mean everyone does; and it doesn't mean I want to prat about with it when
correct posting style gives me the best of both worlds.

>It's easy. Not every post needs all the trivia before.

Indeed. This is why proper trimming is a useful skill.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Mike Vore]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:56:40 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> "MGS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Gee, I was unaware that you were involved in setting the standard for the Usenet community in
>>1983. I must admit that I was unaware of the internet Usenet community when Reagan was President.
>>Indeed , I was under the impression that the moderated Usenet was established in 1984.
>
> It can't be. Al Gore hadn't invented the internet by 1984 IIRC...
>

Usenet has existed for a lot longer than Gore's Internet. Usenet was originally a diap-up net using
UUCP protocols.

>>Well, welcome to the new millennia. Top posting is acceptable for the next thousand years.
>
> Only if you don't mind not being as clear as you might otherwise be.

Topposting makes as much sense to me as bottom posting. What about mid-posting - any
objections to that?


--
Michael Vore, W3CCV M-ASA [Ka8]; WHIRL, ABC; CAW, CW, AAW http://mike.vorefamily.net/ohmywoodness
<-Custom Woodworking http://mike.vorefamily.net/thewoodenradio <-The weblog

 

[Walter Mitty]

"Default" <user_sucking@the_host.smooth> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:

> I've been cycling pretty consistently for a few months and have regularly done so since a very
> early age, but now I've noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my
> left, ie. it has more muscular development than my left leg. What's the point of that?

Ask your local bike shop nicely to add another crank on the other side of the bike : shouldn't cost
too much. People who pedal with one foot often get this "muscle growth" phenomena.

--
Walter Mitty.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:31:54 -0500, "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Look for Alenax. "more efficient" ???? Maybe that's why they were so successful.

I dunno. Using a stairstepper machine thingy at the gym always tired me out *way* faster than one of
those fancy stationary bikes.

I suppose I could possibly accept the argument that the efficiency of the human motor was slightly
better, at least for some people, but there's just no way in hell to convert that motion to the
wheel in an efficient manner.

"Yim would disagree, of course. He argues that the standard bike is inefficient precisely because
the pedals move in a full circle -- even though force can only be applied during the downward
stroke. From 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, it's all wasted effort, Yim argues. "

Isn't that what cleats and toeclips and all those things are supposed to fix, anyway? The up and
down has exactly the same problem, anyway. You can only push down, not pull up, unless your pedals
allow you to do that. If there's any waster motion, it's not the back stroke, but the parts at the
top and bottom of the circle.

http://www.trbsystems.com/ -- apparently the company formed by the alenax guy after alenax itself
dropped. On the pictures of their bikes, it *looks* like all the tech is around the bottom bracket,
with a standard single chain & rear wheel with rear derailler. In the text accompanying everything,
they're still speaking of a dual chain system (see the 'technology' section), with a special rear
wheel and front. Oh, and they seem to be comparing the TRB to a 1970s 10speed, rather than a modern
one (or a modern hubgeared one, for that matter, be it Shimano Nexus or Rohloff).

"Chain length is not changed upon changing speed; the transmission bar is designed so that the chain
length remains the same when moving the speed change point on the bar. " -- then why do I see a rear
derailer on every single one of their products?

"Only one shifter is used for shifting. Shifting is sequential as well as multi-stepped. Shifter is
indexed so that the gear location is positive. " -- Indexing is hardly new any more. For hubgeared
bikes, sequential is the norm.

"Levers are almost twice as long as the conventional crank for greater leverage." -- then why do the
levers look about as long as regular cranks, maybe 180-200 at the very most?

Either the bike's gone through an extremely extended redesign, and they haven't bothered to change
the text since 1993, or those pictures are just regular bikes with splined cranks installed
abnormally, and a little idler pully thingy souped onto it. Possibly even Photosouped rather than
actually done.

Jasper

 

[Walter Mitty]

Top Sirloin <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:

>
> Except that it's a reply not framed by the context of the original post, so you're missing 1/2
> of what's being said, and it also prevents you from coherently replying to more than one idea
> per post.
>
>

Which is what I use it for. Why in the days of google thread reconstruction we need every bit of
info in every post is also beyond me?

--
Walter Mitty.

 

[Walter Mitty]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:

>
> But do recall how this silliness started: I simply asked- politely- that a poster not top post.
> Nothing more. The dudgeon belongs to others.

Please <> Polite.

Here's a better way (after you have given the relevant bike advice) :

"BTW Some people prefer if replies are tagged on the end of the original post in order to keep the
information in the thread easier to follow. It's a personal thing but I, and most of usenet,
prefer it."

--
Walter Mitty.

 

[Buck]

"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:31:54 -0500, "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Either the bike's gone through an extremely extended redesign, and they haven't bothered to change
> the text since 1993, or those pictures are just regular bikes with splined cranks installed
> abnormally, and a little idler pully thingy souped onto it. Possibly even Photosouped rather than
> actually done.

There is some disparity between what is written and what is demonstrated in the video on the right
hand side of the front page. The description suggests two longer levers that only move up and down,
but the video shows normal pedalling followed by independent pedalling and different variations of
"pumping." Really, it looks like a derivation of PowerCranks (www.powercranks.com), something you
can install on any bicycle.

-Buck

 

[Walter Mitty]

David Damerell <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:XKA*[email protected] he conjectured that:

>
>>It's easy. Not every post needs all the trivia before.
>
> Indeed. This is why proper trimming is a useful skill.

Which people learn by doing. I just hate net police.

We'll have to agree to disagree : I'm not supporting top posting as the default, I'm just saying
that it can have its place.

--
Walter Mitty.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 10 Jun 2003 12:55:11 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Things are improving on Usenet. The influx of new users is now down to a level where those who are
>not witless can see the existing standards and abide to them; this thread has just attracted the
>current crop of idiots.

It does seem so, yes. There appear to be more groups now that manage to hang on to the standards and
thus become readable.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 00:36:21 GMT, "MGS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>And top posting is considered acceptable. The whole concept of not top

No, it's not.

>posting is absurd and nothing more than and attempt to standardize the newsgroups with a system of
>posting that is neither accepted by all, nor required.

Have fun talking to the air. Bye.

Jasper

 

[Buck]

"Walter Mitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Top Sirloin <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
> news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>
> >
> > Except that it's a reply not framed by the context of the original post, so you're missing 1/2
> > of what's being said, and it also prevents you from coherently replying to more than one idea
> > per post.
> >
> >
>
> Which is what I use it for. Why in the days of google thread
reconstruction
> we need every bit of info in every post is also beyond me?

Perhaps it is because you participate on a daily basis. Try walking away for a few days. When you
come back, try to make sense of the conversation by using only the most recent posts. The threads
that are the most readable are the ones with quoting and mid/bottom-posting. This makes it much
easier to get back into the coversation without spending hours reading previous posts, which can
easily number in the hundreds. One can "google" their way back through the thread, but I'd rather
catch the gist of the conversation from a few posts than go back and read the whole thing.

-Buck

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:55:34 -0400, "Doug Huffman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The vast majority of internet *users* aren't familiar with the RFCs or with the evolution of the
>'net. Indeed, some of the fundamental protocols are being forgotten (NTP, gopher, telnet). Just as
>our language is being dumbed-down. I wrote "vast majority" and someone will likely quip 'I use
>gopher everyday' - forgetting the value of an anecdote.

NTP is in no way being forgotten -- as of Windows XP, they even have a builtin client that can be
set for a weekly update via NTP. It's spreading, rather than disappearing. The other two are
obsolete. Gopher's been obsolete for years, and telnet is -- rightly so -- being replaced by ssh
except for the purposes of manually debugging problems in SMTP/POP/etc.

Jasper

 

[David Damerell]

Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> brightened my day with
>>>It's easy. Not every post needs all the trivia before.
>>Indeed. This is why proper trimming is a useful skill.
>Which people learn by doing. I just hate net police.

You are completely wrong. The answer to top-posting is vigorous opposition; simply leaving
people to blunder on does not produce improvement. I read rec.games.roguelike.nethack; we
challenge all top-posters, and as a result have virtually eliminated it - and I do not regard it
as coincidence that the group is more consistently on-topic than any other I am aware of (in
particular, even meta threads about posting style are short, because persistent idiots are
simply killfiled widely and give up), or that (when I last checked) less than 1% of the articles
were posted with Outlook Express.

>We'll have to agree to disagree : I'm not supporting top posting as the default, I'm just saying
>that it can have its place.

Yes, and that place is in ~damerell/News/rec/bicycles/tech/KILL.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Buck]

"Walter Mitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> David Damerell <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
> news:XKA*[email protected] he conjectured that:
>
> >
> >>It's easy. Not every post needs all the trivia before.
> >
> > Indeed. This is why proper trimming is a useful skill.
>
> Which people learn by doing. I just hate net police.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree : I'm not supporting top posting as the default, I'm just saying
> that it can have its place.

It's amusing when people try to educate newcomers on proper "netiquette" because somebody always
jumps in to call them 'net "police," implying they have some assumed authority and can "arrest"
someone else for not following common practice. People cannot learn by doing unless someone helps
them to understand what they are doing is not the accepted norm. This makes them educators, not
police. Without someone telling them the best way to participate, they are left wondering why so
many people seem hostile toward their writings. A simple explanation is usually all it takes and the
problem gets corrected. But someone always jumps in to say what they are doing is just fine and the
"'net police" should butt out.

Top-posters are in the minority around these two forums. Instead of fighting back, defending your
"right" to top-post, perhaps it would be better to go with the norm. Otherwise, you might find that
nobody will respond to you because you have been summarily dumped into their killfile.

-Buck

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:03:38 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

>As I said in a previous post, top posting doesn't make the contribution any less worthy.

Just harder to read. Whether it's worth reading a post carefully or not depends on the ratio between
entertainment/knowledge gained and the difficulty of reading it. Changing either one changes the
outcome of wether or not it is 'worth it'.

Jasper