«

In article
<49d2bb7c$0$29842$>,
"asdf" <> wrote:

> 1) You need to carry your own road everywhere
> 2) When you get to a corner, the wheels need to follow a line through the
> curve *perfectly* or a rough ride could result . Think about it... if the
> road is curved, the 'bumps' need to follow a radial pattern, which means the
> geometry of each bump of the road would need to change according to its
> distance from the focus of the curve... bumpy-bumpy (as my 2yo would say).
>
> I guess that it goes to show (yet again) that difference for differences
> sake isn't necessarily such a great idea!
>

The roads will be built once wheels start being designed this way. And
roads (taking the normally horizontal plane of them, think mobius strip
type bends) will raise and curve though bends, the rider needing only to
stay perp to the road at all times.

You don't understand, like Richard, the powerful revolutionary nature of
difference for its own sake.

--
dorayme

Ben C wrote:
> On 2009-03-30, asdf <> wrote:
>>
>> A bicycle with square wheels is uncommon, but I bet I could catch it on my
>> round-wheeled version.
>
> Depends on the shape of the road.
>
> http://pages.usiouxfalls.edu/maa/new...ropped.S04.jpg

On a road like that, a speed bump is a place where it's flat and smooth!


--
John

"dorayme" <> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-...
> In article
> <49d2bb7c$0$29842$>,
> "asdf" <> wrote:
>
>> 1) You need to carry your own road everywhere
>> 2) When you get to a corner, the wheels need to follow a line through the
>> curve *perfectly* or a rough ride could result . Think about it... if
>> the
>> road is curved, the 'bumps' need to follow a radial pattern, which means
>> the
>> geometry of each bump of the road would need to change according to its
>> distance from the focus of the curve... bumpy-bumpy (as my 2yo would
>> say).
>>
>> I guess that it goes to show (yet again) that difference for differences
>> sake isn't necessarily such a great idea!
>>
>
> The roads will be built once wheels start being designed this way. And
> roads (taking the normally horizontal plane of them, think mobius strip
> type bends) will raise and curve though bends, the rider needing only to
> stay perp to the road at all times.

Great. Until you have to stop. *splat*

>
> You don't understand, like Richard, the powerful revolutionary nature of
> difference for its own sake.
>

Oh I understand the nature of the *accidental discovery* through
experimentation. This doesn't apply to scrollbars, however.

> --
> dorayme

On 31 Mar 2009, Ben C <> wrote:

> On 2009-03-31, Neredbojias <> wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2009, Ben C <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-30, asdf <> wrote:
>>
>>>> A bicycle with square wheels is uncommon, but I bet I could catch
>>>> it on my round-wheeled version.
>>>
>>> Depends on the shape of the road.
>>>
>>> http://pages.usiouxfalls.edu/maa/new...r.squarewheels
>>> .S W.editedcropped.S04.jpg
>>
>> Yeahbut a similar wheel with concave sides would provide a much
>> smoother ride.
>
> That bicycle in the picture was said to have a perfectly smooth ride
> on its track. You could even ride it no-hands.
>
> With concave sides it would have wobbled up and down in some fashion
> calculating the exact math of which I leave as an exercise to the
> reader.

Perfectly smooth? Uh, no. Relatively smooth, perhaps; the distance
from the axle to the center of the earth might even have been the same
when the wheel was exactly in a trough (-with a corner) or exactly on a
crest (-at the middle of a side) but in order to be "perfectly smooth"
the aforementioned distance would have to be either constant or
maintain a constant delta and this could only happen if the wheel
possessed a shape which was quite reciprocal to that of the road,
making it rather like a blurry gear with concave sides and effecting a
constant level (or variance) from the gravitational center.

--
Neredbojias
People who live in glass houses must feel funny peeing.
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

Gareth Erskine-Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:13:39 -0400, richard <>
> wrote:
>
>>> Or perhaps we can add excitement to the user's experience and place the
>>> scrollbar at random positions: now *that* is truly thinking outside the
>>> box ... as well as inside the straight-jacket
>> If thomas edison had given up, would we be here today as we are?
>
> I nearly snorted coffee up my nose.

You goof! You're supposed to snort it *out* your nose.

>
> Please, I'd love to hear, which of Thomas Edison's inventions do you
> think is most suitable to be compared with the radical idea of putting
> the scrollbar in a different position?

Probably that one where the elephant falls over dead...

--
John
Or was that the telegraph?