The only "uncyclable" hill is one where the bike tips over backwards. Otherwise, the real problem is that the gearing isn't low enough (or more likely, that the rider isn't strong enough or doesn't know how to shift properly).
First of all, there is a lower limit on gears - the point at which you don't have enough forward speed to keep balance without danger of veering to one side then the other. Secondly, it makes no difference at all whether a Tour de France rider could make it up the hill, if the rider in question can't, then it is uncyclable, and they'll have to get off and push.
If you're just trying to show off that you are a strong rider: no one here could care less, even if there was any evidence that it was true.
If it's electric assist, then obviously it's capable of getting up a hill that's steeper than the rider can manage by his own efforts alone on the same bike.
4. When sharing a road with other traffic, you are safer the closer you are in speed to that traffic. Electric assist can help an otherwise slow rider to be closer to the speed of other traffic.
The problem with electric bikes is that it doesn't fix the root problem, which is, that the person is out of shape.
Electric bikes with throttles won't. But electric assist does require some effort, and thus will help the unfit to get fitter.
It's all very well saying that an unassisted bike will get a person fit, but that will never happen if the person feels they are too unfit to get started. And whilst you might say they can start with short distances, most people want to cycle to commute, and that is a fixed distance.
And don't forget that many people will live in terrain that's hillier than where you live.
Personally, I haven't seen one with the batteries built into the hub before.
I haven't seen one where you set a speed target, such that the cycle helps below that speed, and regenerates when going over that speed.
I certainly haven't seen one that integrates with GPS terrain data (via a smartphone) in order to know where the hills, flats and downhills are. Though it remains to be seen how much benefit that adds. It's not obvious to me where the benefit is over simply sensing pedal torque. But maybe they've found a big benefit that's non-obvious.
1. Plenty of people live in places with hills steep enough to make them need to get off and push. Battery assist can make the uncyclable hill cyclable
2. Even more people live in places where the gradients or distances are enough to break out in a sweat when cycling. Which is fine if it's a simple work-out. But not good if you are using the bike for transport to somewhere where there isn't a shower at the other end. Battery assist can help you arrive smelling sweeter.
3. Battery assist is good for people who are thinking of making a move to using a cycle rather than a car. They may feel they are not fit enough for it to be a pleasant prospect without a battery assist. Whilst cycle snobs might like to thumb their nose at them, the more people that switch to riding cycles the better.
If you can't explain what makes you think that, I have no compunction to believe you.
You have no obligation to believe I know what the term "The obvious explanation" means? You're talking gibberish.
You used the common slashdot line: "You keep using that term, but I do not think it means what you think it means." without thinking it through. When used for a term that is possible to misunderstand then it works. When it's a phrase that cannot be misunderstood by any English speaker, then it just shows lack of thinking on your part.
No, I didn't - I said the keyboard on my smartphone doesn't work right, however if you actually read the entire sentence I said that after pointing out no trouble shopping with my Nexus 7, which is also an Android device
So it's a flaw on some Androids and not others. It's not a flaw on any iOS devices.
It depends what you consider crapware. I consider WinZIP and its infamous "I agree" nag screen to be crapware. There are tons of such examples in the App Store.
Which app store are you talking about? In years of using the iOS App Store, I've never seen a nag screen. I'd have to double check the app approval guidelines, but I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed.
No, you are wrong. As I was talking about the iPhone (which has had 330 ppi ever since 2010), I am completely right. You suddenly include a completely different subject and then claim I was wrong. Way to go!
We were talking about what Apple claim for their Retina displays. And since they cover devices other than the iPhone, they are all within the conversation.
"The most obvious explanation" You keep using that term, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Then your thinking is flawed.
Now, would you please, please stop prattling on about the goddamn keyboard?
You're the one that admitted that Android has a fundamental flaw with the keyboard that stopped you using it for online purchase. That certainly bears emphasising given that it's under a story that pointing out that Android devices are little used for on-line purchases.
Heck Android devices usage as browsing devices for any purpose is way below their market share.
The fact that a few geeks change their user agent strings doesn't explain the enormous size of the difference. But it does underline another problem with using Androids for browsing: that such geeks feel they have to pretend to be using iOS devices in order for things to work reasonably. Web sites tend to cater for iOS users. They don't care about the Android market.
Most non-crap free applications do not intent to directly make money from the application.
I don't agree with your opinion.
I don't have any ads or in-app purchase in my email, calendar, banking, music player or instant messaging application.
Other than banking, those tend to be built in. And in the case of Google's versions, you pay by losing your privacy. The banking one is also commercial. It's part of the overall commercial package the bank offers.
Therefore if I were developing a crapware application trying to fool people into buying fake university diplomas or fake pills, I would target iOS first. I would also sell a "pro" version with ads disabled.
You could try, but you'd either never get through the app review process, or be subsequently de-listed when the complaints come in. No such danger for Android apps. You can get away with any kind of scam on Android.
Meanwhile developers offering non-free quality apps almost always develop for iOS first.
That in no way explains how a device owned by about 30% of smartphone users was seen as being responsible for over 80% of online sales.
The most obvious explanation for that is that most Androids are cheap devices, that are either used as dumb phones, or as tablets just gather dust on a shelf once people realise their web-browsing experience is terrible. Your experience of the keyboard covering form fields is just one aspect of that.
Or the more obvious explanation that the iOS keyboard popping up doesn't ever cover up form fields on a web-site. The current one is automatically scrolled into view, and any other part of the web-page can be scrolled into view by the user if needs be. Nothing is out of bounds because it's behind the keyboard.
Until you get to the ordering screen, which they didn't take the time to create a mobile version of, and you can't fill out the entire form because the goddamn keyboard keeps popping up and covering the last few entries!
The Nexus 7 works pretty well (Humble Bundle's site takes a huge shit on it, otherwise I haven't had a problem), but I've all but given up trying to order stuff with my smartphone.
Given this report, iOS users don't seem to have a problem.
Which should never be an argument if you are developing a free application.
Depends if you are wanting to make a profit on the "free" app. Because of course most "free" apps are intended to make a profit. Either on advertising or in-app purchases.
Such a system would never work in a movie theater. A physical interlock
Ah OK, I hadn't realised that's what was being talked about. I was being more general, about other hypothetical measures used to counteract mobile phone use in cinemas. Faraday shields or jammers to prevent phone and text use. Infrared cameras to spot camera use in the darkness. Bluetooth beacons being used to signal areas where phone use was not allowed. etc.
In one case, you regulate people based on their actual behavior. In another, you have something against a device, without regard to its actual usage in practice.
No. Holding the phone up in the way I described without actually pressing record would have the exact same effect of being ejected or punched.
So they basically bragged that they found the perfect pixel density @ 330 ppi... which is even worse.
Wrong. The pixel density beyond which it makes no difference varies according to typical viewing distance. It's around 300 dpi for a phone, as the typical viewing distance is around 10 inches. It would be considerably lower for a TV for example.
In reality, they sticked with that pixel density because they have very strict (pixel-based) design constraints for their platform.
Wrong. Retina displays also cover the Mac, and that has no fixed pixel counts for a display.
Now those devices are becoming wearable so they won't have to be taken out of the pocket for use, as in the wrist-smartphones.
There's no more of a sign of a trend for Google Glass than there was for Segway becoming a widespread form of transport. Availability does not mean widespread adoption.
And the "spy cameras" that have built into glasses for decades were not mainstream consumer products.
Neither is Google Glass. Google might hope it will become one. But hope is not reality.
We've learned to accept that everyone's carrying a palm-sized high definition camera in their pocket at all times. That was a huge step and the public accepted it without pause.
Because phone cameras more like conventional cameras than they are like a spy-cameras. Google Glass is more like spy-cameras than it's like conventional cameras.
the notion that you're just going to go around handing out beatings to everyone
I never said I'd hand out beatings. But it's one of the risks Google Glass users face. Some of them will be beaten for potentially or actually filming where violent people don't want it. For example in the gents toilet. Or when passing drug dealers or pimps in the street. Or simply in a bar.
Slashdot Mirror
The only "uncyclable" hill is one where the bike tips over backwards. Otherwise, the real problem is that the gearing isn't low enough (or more likely, that the rider isn't strong enough or doesn't know how to shift properly).
First of all, there is a lower limit on gears - the point at which you don't have enough forward speed to keep balance without danger of veering to one side then the other. Secondly, it makes no difference at all whether a Tour de France rider could make it up the hill, if the rider in question can't, then it is uncyclable, and they'll have to get off and push.
If you're just trying to show off that you are a strong rider: no one here could care less, even if there was any evidence that it was true.
If it's electric assist, then obviously it's capable of getting up a hill that's steeper than the rider can manage by his own efforts alone on the same bike.
4. When sharing a road with other traffic, you are safer the closer you are in speed to that traffic. Electric assist can help an otherwise slow rider to be closer to the speed of other traffic.
The problem with electric bikes is that it doesn't fix the root problem, which is, that the person is out of shape.
Electric bikes with throttles won't. But electric assist does require some effort, and thus will help the unfit to get fitter.
It's all very well saying that an unassisted bike will get a person fit, but that will never happen if the person feels they are too unfit to get started. And whilst you might say they can start with short distances, most people want to cycle to commute, and that is a fixed distance.
And don't forget that many people will live in terrain that's hillier than where you live.
Personally, I haven't seen one with the batteries built into the hub before.
I haven't seen one where you set a speed target, such that the cycle helps below that speed, and regenerates when going over that speed.
I certainly haven't seen one that integrates with GPS terrain data (via a smartphone) in order to know where the hills, flats and downhills are. Though it remains to be seen how much benefit that adds. It's not obvious to me where the benefit is over simply sensing pedal torque. But maybe they've found a big benefit that's non-obvious.
1. Plenty of people live in places with hills steep enough to make them need to get off and push. Battery assist can make the uncyclable hill cyclable
2. Even more people live in places where the gradients or distances are enough to break out in a sweat when cycling. Which is fine if it's a simple work-out. But not good if you are using the bike for transport to somewhere where there isn't a shower at the other end. Battery assist can help you arrive smelling sweeter.
3. Battery assist is good for people who are thinking of making a move to using a cycle rather than a car. They may feel they are not fit enough for it to be a pleasant prospect without a battery assist. Whilst cycle snobs might like to thumb their nose at them, the more people that switch to riding cycles the better.
The funny thing is you're the one that looks like the snob here, not the "hipster" you're having a go at.
If you can't explain what makes you think that, I have no compunction to believe you.
You have no obligation to believe I know what the term "The obvious explanation" means? You're talking gibberish.
You used the common slashdot line: "You keep using that term, but I do not think it means what you think it means." without thinking it through. When used for a term that is possible to misunderstand then it works. When it's a phrase that cannot be misunderstood by any English speaker, then it just shows lack of thinking on your part.
No, I didn't - I said the keyboard on my smartphone doesn't work right, however if you actually read the entire sentence I said that after pointing out no trouble shopping with my Nexus 7, which is also an Android device
So it's a flaw on some Androids and not others. It's not a flaw on any iOS devices.
It depends what you consider crapware. I consider WinZIP and its infamous "I agree" nag screen to be crapware. There are tons of such examples in the App Store.
Which app store are you talking about? In years of using the iOS App Store, I've never seen a nag screen. I'd have to double check the app approval guidelines, but I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed.
people with more money than sense.
A phrase used solely by people who don't have the money to buy what they want. It's the classic expression of envy.
No, you are wrong. As I was talking about the iPhone (which has had 330 ppi ever since 2010), I am completely right. You suddenly include a completely different subject and then claim I was wrong. Way to go!
We were talking about what Apple claim for their Retina displays. And since they cover devices other than the iPhone, they are all within the conversation.
Your link is interesting, thanks for that.
"The most obvious explanation"
You keep using that term, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Then your thinking is flawed.
Now, would you please, please stop prattling on about the goddamn keyboard?
You're the one that admitted that Android has a fundamental flaw with the keyboard that stopped you using it for online purchase. That certainly bears emphasising given that it's under a story that pointing out that Android devices are little used for on-line purchases.
Heck Android devices usage as browsing devices for any purpose is way below their market share.
The fact that a few geeks change their user agent strings doesn't explain the enormous size of the difference. But it does underline another problem with using Androids for browsing: that such geeks feel they have to pretend to be using iOS devices in order for things to work reasonably. Web sites tend to cater for iOS users. They don't care about the Android market.
Most non-crap free applications do not intent to directly make money from the application.
I don't agree with your opinion.
I don't have any ads or in-app purchase in my email, calendar, banking, music player or instant messaging application.
Other than banking, those tend to be built in. And in the case of Google's versions, you pay by losing your privacy. The banking one is also commercial. It's part of the overall commercial package the bank offers.
Therefore if I were developing a crapware application trying to fool people into buying fake university diplomas or fake pills, I would target iOS first. I would also sell a "pro" version with ads disabled.
You could try, but you'd either never get through the app review process, or be subsequently de-listed when the complaints come in. No such danger for Android apps. You can get away with any kind of scam on Android.
Meanwhile developers offering non-free quality apps almost always develop for iOS first.
That in no way explains how a device owned by about 30% of smartphone users was seen as being responsible for over 80% of online sales.
The most obvious explanation for that is that most Androids are cheap devices, that are either used as dumb phones, or as tablets just gather dust on a shelf once people realise their web-browsing experience is terrible. Your experience of the keyboard covering form fields is just one aspect of that.
Or the more obvious explanation that the iOS keyboard popping up doesn't ever cover up form fields on a web-site. The current one is automatically scrolled into view, and any other part of the web-page can be scrolled into view by the user if needs be. Nothing is out of bounds because it's behind the keyboard.
Until you get to the ordering screen, which they didn't take the time to create a mobile version of, and you can't fill out the entire form because the goddamn keyboard keeps popping up and covering the last few entries!
The Nexus 7 works pretty well (Humble Bundle's site takes a huge shit on it, otherwise I haven't had a problem), but I've all but given up trying to order stuff with my smartphone.
Given this report, iOS users don't seem to have a problem.
Which should never be an argument if you are developing a free application.
Depends if you are wanting to make a profit on the "free" app. Because of course most "free" apps are intended to make a profit. Either on advertising or in-app purchases.
And Android users are people who couldn't afford something better.
There's such a thing as too much?
Such a system would never work in a movie theater. A physical interlock
Ah OK, I hadn't realised that's what was being talked about. I was being more general, about other hypothetical measures used to counteract mobile phone use in cinemas. Faraday shields or jammers to prevent phone and text use. Infrared cameras to spot camera use in the darkness. Bluetooth beacons being used to signal areas where phone use was not allowed. etc.
In one case, you regulate people based on their actual behavior. In another, you have something against a device, without regard to its actual usage in practice.
No. Holding the phone up in the way I described without actually pressing record would have the exact same effect of being ejected or punched.
There's another case in point.
BTW there's no need for Google Glass to record cops. Mobile phones work perfectly well.
None of which makes either spy-camera's or Google Glass' recording facility any more acceptable.
So they basically bragged that they found the perfect pixel density @ 330 ppi... which is even worse.
Wrong. The pixel density beyond which it makes no difference varies according to typical viewing distance. It's around 300 dpi for a phone, as the typical viewing distance is around 10 inches. It would be considerably lower for a TV for example.
In reality, they sticked with that pixel density because they have very strict (pixel-based) design constraints for their platform.
Wrong. Retina displays also cover the Mac, and that has no fixed pixel counts for a display.
And here's a chart of HDTV systems, and based on viewing distance, when each of them reaches the point where there is no point.
http://cdn.avsforum.com/4/4c/900x900px-LL-4cd4431b_200ppdengleski.png
Now those devices are becoming wearable so they won't have to be taken out of the pocket for use, as in the wrist-smartphones.
There's no more of a sign of a trend for Google Glass than there was for Segway becoming a widespread form of transport. Availability does not mean widespread adoption.
And the "spy cameras" that have built into glasses for decades were not mainstream consumer products.
Neither is Google Glass. Google might hope it will become one. But hope is not reality.
We've learned to accept that everyone's carrying a palm-sized high definition camera in their pocket at all times. That was a huge step and the public accepted it without pause.
Because phone cameras more like conventional cameras than they are like a spy-cameras. Google Glass is more like spy-cameras than it's like conventional cameras.
the notion that you're just going to go around handing out beatings to everyone
I never said I'd hand out beatings. But it's one of the risks Google Glass users face. Some of them will be beaten for potentially or actually filming where violent people don't want it. For example in the gents toilet. Or when passing drug dealers or pimps in the street. Or simply in a bar.