Re: HELMETS!!!

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
> >>>>> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
> >>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a
> >>>> foam bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the
> >>>> much more safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians)
> >>>> generally do not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the
> >>>> racer types.
> >>> When I looked at the PDF file, it showed some sort of screen
snapshot
> >>> with large black areas and some tiny yellow icons. It was completely
> >>> meaningless.  Maybe there was something my PDF viewer didn't
recognize,
> >>> but nothing I saw had anything to do with helmets.
> >>> Is Sherman imagining things or just ranting?
> >>>
> >> Yo Zaumem - Victor Kan posted the link and Jym Dyer commented on
> >> it. Are they just ranting also? Sheesh!
> > Don't know about Victor Kan (never having read his posts) but Jym
> > Dyer,
> > unlike you, doesn't have an anti-helmet agenda.
> >
> Which has nothing at all to do whether a video link can be viewed on a
> webpage, does it now?

It has a lot to do with you just ranting as I said (listing that as a
possibility).
> 
> I do not have an anti-helmet agenda, I have an anti-misinformation
> agenda. Bicycle foam hats can provide useful bump and scrape
> protection.

Oh please.


> > I'm running the lastest firefox available on the particular Linux
> > distribution I'm using, and it starts "evince" as a PDF viewer.  It
> > didn't show anything meaningful.
> >
> You are the computer expert with the best system - you tell me why the
> link is not working. My guess [1] is that since it asks for Windows
> Media Player, it may not be Linux compatible.

This may surprise you, but I have better things to do with my time than
try to figure out what went wrong with something claiming to be a
PDF file (and my PDF viewer did not ask for Windows Media Player or an
equivalent).

It is well known that Adobe has been fiddling with new version of PDF
for (I presume) business reasons and has recently purchased
Macromedia, and it wouldn't be surprising if working towards
integrating these two products is part of the reason for the frequent
revisions.  Frankly, I'm not interested.  It's merely a business
thing.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB