Re: Troll, not published helmet research

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

In reply to Bill "Laa Laa I'm Not Listening" Zaumen:

Every one of the links you posted referes solely to aero helmets. Those
which quote actual figures, the first one excepted, are all based on the
same study - and it's the same figure as in Rinard's piece
(http://damonrinard.com/aero/aerodynamics.htm), so comes from
the original Kyle paper as already discussed ad nauseam. Maybe it's time to
resurrect the old nickname "Bill *only-one-study-in-only-one- country*
Zaumen"! Just to remind you
of the context of the 2% figure which is the only number quoted in all but
one of the studies you link:

"Aero helmets, as they are used for racing, which do not
however meet the ANSI safety requirements, reduce the
aero drag by approximately 2% compared to a bald head or
a rubber cap over the hair. "

All of this is obvious to the casual reader, indicating that you probably
did not go further than the Google summaries.

So now to the links:

<http://www.mecheng.adelaide.edu.au/courses/undergrad/projects/level4papers2
001/chin_lim.pdf>

"Design of an aerodynamically sound bike helmet" - i.e. a theoretical paper
on how to remedy the fact that bike hlemets are /not/ aerodynamically sound.

Quote from abstract: "helmet will increase the frontal area of the rider's
head and this will affect the aerodynamics of the rider, thus, the rising of
drag. Therefore, helmet must have a good aerodynamics shape to minimise the
effect of the frontal area. Two track cycling helmets are used to
investigate the performances of drag in different position."

So Frank's comment re greater frontal area is backed by this study.

It includes the assertion that helmets are an essential safety aid, so clear
evidence of bias. There is also no mention of the helmets tested meeting
ANSI standards; it would be a surprise if they did.

>
http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/28/d0000000200000069.cfm?pid=96&CFID=807492&CFTOKEN=69087813

Barely refers to helmets (the word appears precisely twice). Quote: "In
cycling, riders wear aerodynamic helmets and skintight clothing and assume
crouch positions over the handle bars ("aero bars") to minimize wind
resistance". No figures presented, no analysis undertaken. Refers solely
to aero helmets for time trial and track racing.

> http://sportsfigures.espn.com/sportsfigures/batting_quiz4.htm

A children's pop quiz also referring to head fairings. No academic weight
whatsoever.

> http://wings.avkids.com/Curriculums/Sports/cyclist_summary.html

A school science project, no new data, no academic weight, merely restates
Kyle: "An aerodynamic bicycle helmet reduces the drag by approximately 2%
over a rider with no helmet. In fact, modern aerodynamic helmets result in a
lower drag even for a bald bicyclists." - in other words, yet again, it's
about head fairings.

> http://www.gugly.com/Archbikeclothing.htm

"The difference between good and bad helmets has been shown in studies to be
equivalent to the difference between a good disc wheel and a standard 36
round spoke, box shaped rim wheel (at about 30 mph)." - aero helmets again.
No academic weight, no new data, no analysis, just parroting the same
figures which (as we know) have been show ion practice to be optimistic even
for those highly specialised hlemets. Dates back to the days of head
fairings,

Also contains this gem: "Good helmets are designed to work effectively when
the rider is facing forward and not to the side. Doing so, will not only
eliminate all benefits gained with the good helmet, but may also slow you
down. And for those who still can't picture what I'm saying, turning you
head while using an aerodynamic helmet is like trying to cut a piece of
butter with the knife laying on its side rather than on its edge."

> http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/Elements/issue2/sharpe.html

Contains precisely one mention of helmets: "Wind-suits and helmets, together
with streamlining the bicycle, and the rider adopting a low profile riding
posture can reduce drag by up to 7%" - on other words, yet again, they are
talking about top-spec time trial or (in this case) pursuit kit. In this
case the fact that it is track kit under discussion is made plain by the
inclusion of the Burrows Lotus bike ("Olympic gold medalist Boardman's Lotus
bicycle [...] under 6kg compared to a conventional track bicycle weight of
over 8kg"), which of course the UCI promptly banned.

Bill, this is desperate stuff. Is this the best you can do?


> rest of post snipped - it's time for dinner, so your remaining post
> today gets ingnored as well.

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening"

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[David St. Hubbins]

Dude you're wasting your time.

****head zaumen doesn't read what he posts himself, let alone what
anyone else posts.

Google backaways on his retarded .sig and award yourself a penny for
every post that makes sense. A couple of years worth will buy you the
price of the stamp to send yourself a postcard about it.

[Bill Z.]

"David St. Hubbins" > writes:

> Dude you're wasting your time.
>
> ****head zaumen doesn't read what he posts himself, let alone what
> anyone else posts.

Hubbins is yet another idiot.

>
> Google backaways on his retarded .sig

The signature is backwards for a good reason.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

> Hubbins is yet another idiot.

Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you, Bill.
Google for that name some time.

> The signature is backwards for a good reason.

To match your cognitive faculties, evidently.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[Bill Z.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> > Hubbins is yet another idiot.
>
> Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you, Bill.
> Google for that name some time.

Oh, are you or one of the others posting under multiple names? Do
you expect me to keep track of that or do some cross checking on each
and every post I see? That makes you even more of a worthless troll
than I thought you were.

> > The signature is backwards for a good reason.
>
> To match your cognitive faculties, evidently.

To limit spam, you moron. Surprise us and see if you can explain
why.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

>> Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you,
>> Bill. Google for that name some time.

> Oh, are you or one of the others posting under multiple names?

How should I know what other people are doing? Using sock-puppets to yank
the chain of trolls is a long-established sport. It could be anyone.

> Do
> you expect me to keep track of that or do some cross checking on each
> and every post I see? That makes you even more of a worthless troll
> than I thought you were.

LOL! Zaumen thinks you become a troll by having someone agree with you!
The only defintion of troll which he does not himself meet!

>>> The signature is backwards for a good reason.
>> To match your cognitive faculties, evidently.
> To limit spam, you moron. Surprise us and see if you can explain
> why.

So you think spammers pick up .sigs, parse out proper names (even when not
capitalised), compare them with the ISP name in the Usenet posting headers
and infer an email address? It is all becoming clear. You are one of those
conspiracy nuts, aren't you? It's a great conspiracy, nobody is breaking
ranks at all - all the proof is against you, so that proves the conspiracy
and that "proves" you are right. No wonder nobody has gotten any sens out
of you in living memory!

Thanks for clearing that up, Bill, much appreciated.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[David St. Hubbins]

Bwuhahahaha! Being called an idiot by Zaumen is a rite of passage!
What next, ****-for-brains? Gonna call me a liar?

I gotta love the way you cling to a belief even after it turns out that
all your proof shows the opposite, tho. Man, you are a True Believer!
Pity you are putting all your energy into funny plastic hats instead of
bike safety.

On second thoughts, the bike safety movement needs your style like a
fish needs a bike, so how about you **** off and take your tiny mind
with you.
Bill Zaumen: purveyor of prime bull**** to the cycling community.

[Bill Z.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you,
> >> Bill. Google for that name some time.
>
> > Oh, are you or one of the others posting under multiple names?
>
> How should I know what other people are doing? Using sock-puppets to yank
> the chain of trolls is a long-established sport. It could be anyone.

If you don't know who it is, then how do you know it is a "sock-puppet"?
Are you just making stuff up.

Well, if you are playing chidish games, I guess I'll flush the rest of
your posts today down the bit bucket.
>
> So you think spammers pick up .sigs, parse out proper names (even when not
> capitalised), compare them with the ISP name in the Usenet posting headers
> and infer an email address?

I have some evidence they do precisely that. Acutally, they don't look
for proper names per se. The signatures are short so they may just find
words and try them. If you include a URL, they may note that some ISPs
make a designated part of the URL the same as the user name in an email
address. For a large enough ISP, they may treat that as a special
case.

> It is all becoming clear. You are one of those conspiracy nuts,
> aren't you?

I'm just a hell of a lot smarter than you. BTW, perhaps you'd care
to explain how I started getting junk mail from my ISP's account
without *ever* having given out my email address to anyone on readable
form (I posted a URL to a graphics image containing my email address
with text wrapped around an @ sign, to defeat even character
recogniztion software.) Do *you* think they'd actually do something
as labor intensive as having someone look at the link, figure out
the address, and type it in by hand? The simplest explanation is they
figured out that pacbell used the same name in the URL for web
pages as in email addresses.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:43:38 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message >:

>> How should I know what other people are doing? Using sock-puppets to yank
>> the chain of trolls is a long-established sport. It could be anyone.

>If you don't know who it is, then how do you know it is a "sock-puppet"?
>Are you just making stuff up.

Check out the name. Oh, I forgot - you are too arrogant to follow up
anything if somebody else suggests it.

>Well, if you are playing chidish games, I guess I'll flush the rest of
>your posts today down the bit bucket.

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".

>> So you think spammers pick up .sigs, parse out proper names (even when not
>> capitalised), compare them with the ISP name in the Usenet posting headers
>> and infer an email address?

>I have some evidence they do precisely that. Acutally, they don't look
>for proper names per se. The signatures are short so they may just find
>words and try them.

LOL! Bill, there are so many addies on web sites that there is no
need even to try that. Last time I ran a test they were still
scanning Usenet, but only at a most basic level and even the
relatively benign trick of putting the real address in the reply-to
field took over a month to start getting spam. Munged addresses in
the .sig (eg my dot name at my domain dot com) were not spammed, and
unmunged addies in the body took a couple of weeks to be picked up.
An address in clear on a web page scanned by Google was spammed within
24 hours. I have never seen any evidence at all that putting a name,
without a domain, in a usenet .sig results in spam from the
harvesters.

In fact, if you were to take the name and the domain from my .sig and
combine them you would get a valid email address, but I have never
received a single spam to that address.

It's possible that someone you ****ed off (a pretty big field if a
Google search is anything to go by) deliberately signed you up to a
spammer's list. That's not an uncommon form of punishment meted out
to trolls, and far more plausible than picking up your name from the
..sig and combining it with the domain from the headers.

>I'm just a hell of a lot smarter than you.

Thank you so much, then, for reserving your titanic intellect for use
elsewhere than in helmet threads, allowing us poor stupid folks to
have such fun proving you hopelessly, constantly and permanantly
wrong.

>BTW, perhaps you'd care
>to explain how I started getting junk mail from my ISP's account
>without *ever* having given out my email address to anyone on readable
>form

If you're so smart you should know that. For a start, they try random
names at random domains. Especially with the big ISPs like PacBell.

Another common route is virms in Outhouse / Outhouse Express. You
send mail to someone, their copy of Outhouse automatically adds your
addy to their address book, and then they get the latest script kiddie
infection and blast your address to the four winds.

And of course there is the possibility of a deliberate punishment
action.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq/harvest/

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Bill Z.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:43:38 GMT, (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message >:
>
> >> How should I know what other people are doing? Using sock-puppets to yank
> >> the chain of trolls is a long-established sport. It could be anyone.
>
> >If you don't know who it is, then how do you know it is a "sock-puppet"?
> >Are you just making stuff up.
>
> Check out the name. Oh, I forgot - you are too arrogant to follow up
> anything if somebody else suggests it.

What name? It was a random post from some moron, possibly you. Do you
think I care who it is or would bother to even remember whatever name
he used, or even looked very closely?

>
> >Well, if you are playing chidish games, I guess I'll flush the rest of
> >your posts today down the bit bucket.
>
> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".

Translation - our troll Guy is all in a tither because he's been put
in a timeout.

> >> So you think spammers pick up .sigs, parse out proper names (even when not
> >> capitalised), compare them with the ISP name in the Usenet posting headers
> >> and infer an email address?
>
> >I have some evidence they do precisely that. Acutally, they don't look
> >for proper names per se. The signatures are short so they may just find
> >words and try them.
>
> LOL! Bill, there are so many addies on web sites that there is no
> need even to try that.

I saw this behavior while using an old netscape browser configured to
(a) not allow cookies, (b) not run java, (c) not run javascript, (d)
not accepting plugins of any time, (e) disabling most of the plugins
that came with the browser, and (f) ignoring most web sites as useless
trash. I also have never owned a Windows box, and nearly all the
"addies" as you call them target that.

> Last time I ran a test they were still scanning Usenet, but only at
> a most basic level and even the relatively benign trick of putting
> the real address in the reply-to field took over a month to start
> getting spam.

That time delay is most likely because (as Yahoo's CTO mentioned in a
talk I went to a few years ago), that spam is a two-level scam. The
people making money on it sell spam software and lists of email
addresses to dim-witted idiots who try to sell viagra and who claim to
represent poor corrupt Nigerian officials. Yahoo's CTO knowns a fair
bit about this subject due to the company's effort to reduce the flood
of traffic. The mechanisms some of the spam programs use (according to
Yahoo's CT0) require a PhD in computer science to understand. Even if
he was exaggerating, what some of these guys do is probably well
beyond what you could understand.

I'll skip the rest - you obviously don't know what you are talking
about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

>> Check out the name. Oh, I forgot - you are too arrogant to follow up
>> anything if somebody else suggests it.

>What name?

I rest my case.

>> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".

>Translation - our troll Guy is all in a tither because he's been put
>in a timeout.

I think you're confusing me with someone who gives a toss. If you
choose to allow my statements to go by default because you are too
arrogant, idle, stupid or confused to rebut them, that is your problem
not mine.

>> LOL! Bill, there are so many addies on web sites that there is no
>> need even to try that.

>I saw this behavior while using an old netscape browser configured to
>(a) not allow cookies, (b) not run java, (c) not run javascript, (d)
>not accepting plugins of any time, (e) disabling most of the plugins
>that came with the browser, and (f) ignoring most web sites as useless
>trash. I also have never owned a Windows box, and nearly all the
>"addies" as you call them target that.

So the most likely explanation is that it was someone you ****ed off
with your incessent bull****. Which leaves the field wide open.

Of course, crass ignorance is still a possibility, given that you
think an email address is only targeted when served off a Windows box.
Or are you so woefully ill-informed that you don't realise that "addy"
is a common abbreviation for email address?

>That time delay is most likely because (as Yahoo's CTO mentioned in a
>talk I went to a few years ago), that spam is a two-level scam.

I know how it works. The point is, the thing most guaranteed to
generate spam is an address on a web page. It does not look as if
spammers bother overmuch with Usenet these days, it being much easier
to scarf up addresses from web forums.

The idea that real names in .sigs might be combined with domains from
headers and made into email addresses is, I think, a paranoid
delusion. Combining the name in my .sig with the domain in the link
below it produces a valid email address, and always has, but it has
never once been spammed.

>I'll skip the rest - you obviously don't know what you are talking
>about.

LOL! Says the man who thinks that merely putting your real name in
your .sig will generate spam!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University