I have a bike I purchased from a rental company about 8 years ago. It would have been three years old then, so that makes it a 2008 year bike. I could have sworn it was made by a medium end bike company, like Trek or Specialized, but I can't remember. I've also covered the bike in bumper stickers so I can't see the original graphics. I do have a logo from the front though.   It's a 24 speed but I really doubt that that matters. Here's a side view, but it just looks like a pretty generic bike to me.    I don't think it is a duplicate because I really don't care who made it, but the bike is for sale and a potential buyer may care.  This bike was rented, and later purchased, on Cape Cod, United States.
We often get questions on bicycles.stackexchange about identifying a bicycles manufacturer, model, make, and year.  Often these questions are downvoted or closed -- usually with a comment attached to them that it's not necessary to know the exact model/make/year of a bicycle if you want to fix, repair, or ride your bike. Why should owners not care about the model/make/year of their bicycle? Especially when it comes to less expensive bikes (aka BSOs) and BMX bicycles? This is intended as a canonical question that we can point closed questions to. Also see      (generally not helpful for identifying a brand/model)
Autofilling fields based on another field What is the result of $ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \sum^n_{i=1} i^k}{n^{k+1}},\ k \in \mathbb{R} $ and why? Vim: How do I search for a word which is not followed by another word? How do I open PDF in Adobe Reader DC without locking the file from being updated by pdflatex? I don't know if this is possible on Adobe Reader DC on Windows, but asking in case someone has managed to do it.   When I am working on a large document in LaTeX (I use TexStudio) I sometimes like to keep a second copy of my PDF on a second screen so that I can easily refer to what I wrote before, while on my main screen I would have TexStudio with its preview window, which is typically automatically in sync with my current editing location.  On Ubuntu (which uses evince as its default PDF viewer) I used to do it quite nicely. It also seems to watch the PDF file for updates, and keeps in sync of any new versions of the PDF file and reloads it (staying on the same page) when I re-run pdflatex from TexStudio.  At the moment I am working on a Windows machine, and I am trying to recreate the same workflow. I would really like to open a second viewer on my second screen so that I can navigate easily to previous chapters without losing my current position in TexStudio's preview window (which will anyway go back to the current editing location when I run pdflatex).  The only problem however is that when I open the PDF in Adobe Reader DC to put it on the second screen and then I try to recompile the PDF I get the error "I can't write to file". I presume that for some stupid reason Adobe Reader DC maintains some write lock on the file, probably keeping it open while the PDF is visible on screen.  Is there a way to disable this stupid file-locking behaviour from Adobe Reader DC?  UPDATE  After some valuable comments, a workaround is possible using a different viewer. One could either use  or  (the default PDF viewer on Ubuntu, but also available for Windows). They are not so feature rich, and maybe do not look so nice, but in this case do the job.  A similar question was posted  for reference. Is it really possible to break the speed of light by flicking your wrist with a laser pointer? How can I efficiently generate a Set from a List structure? I have a bit of code where I've written a SOQL query that returns a list of SObject records, however I need a Set&lt;Id&gt; structure to pass to another method that I don't have control of (and thus can't change the method signature of).  How can I turn my returned List&lt;SObject&gt; into a Set&lt;Id&gt;? Is the best option just a for loop? I'm trying to decide on a higher-end digital SLR, and I'm down to choosing between an APS-C model and a full-frame model.  I understand that the sensors are of different sizes, and as such have an effect on the perceived magnification of the lens, with the smaller APS-C sensor having an effective focal length greater than what it otherwise would be with a full frame sensor. But why does this matter?     What things should drive my choice between one or the other?   In which situations is one better than the other, and why? For example:     The word rarely turns up outside of those contexts.      The word turns up rarely outside of those contexts.   Which one is correct and why? full-screen browser window on load document After upgrading to Ubuntu 14.04 from 12.04 I have duplicate entries in dash.    How can I get rid of them? \includegraphics cannot handle filenames that contain more than the one dot, separating the filename from the extension. Apparently it uses everything after the first dot as extension and then, of course, complains about an unknown graphics extension.  This is annoying as I very often have filenames that contain parameter values, e.g. plot_a0.4_b0.6.pdf.  Is there a way to teach LaTeX to interpret only the string behind the last dot as extension? What is the norm of this bounded linear functional? Let $a$, $b$ be two arbitrary but fixed real numbers such that $a &lt; b$, let $C[a,b]$ denote the normed space of all continuous real (or complex) valued functions defined on $[a,b]$ with the maximum norm, and let $f$ be the functional defined on $C[a,b]$ as $$f(x):= \int_{a}^{b} x(t) x_0(t) dt $$ for all $x$ in $C[a,b]$, where $x_0$ is a fixed element of $C[a,b]$.   Now $f$ is evidently linear and bounded. How to compute the norm of $f$? What is this norm?   And what is the norm of the bounded linear functional $g$ defined as follows: $$g(x):= \int_{a}^{(a+b)/2} x(t) \cdot dt - \int_{(a+b)/2}^{b} x(t) \cdot dt$$ for all $x$ in $C[a,b]$? My book uses the argument that the multiplicities of a few macrostates in a macroscopic object take up an extraordinarily large share of all possible microstates, such that even over the entire lifetime of the universe, if each microstate had an equal chance of being accessed, fluctuations away from equilibrium would never occur.  My question to this statistical proof is this: In the real world, is there really an infinitesimal but nonzero chance that macroscopic systems could access some of the more unlikely macrostates (e.g. heat transfer from a cold object to a hot object)? It would help everyone if we provided a mechanism that people could use to flag their post if English is language they are not comfortably fluent in. A lot of non-English speakers have to go to English forums for tech support and find it embarrassing to ask questions in broken Englis.   Worse, people reading a post often cannot tell if a badly-worded post results from a poor English or just laziness and sloppiness on the part of a native English speaker. Personally, I will take the time to puzzle out a poorly-worded post if I know the author is struggling with English, but if I think they're just lazy and careless I won't bother.   A simple check box could flag the author as a non-English speaker and allow everyone to adjust accordingly.   Edit01:  Some answers below have accused me of being 'elitist'. I'm not sure where they got the idea that I was sneering down at anyone because their abilities at either English or coding. That was not my intent.   When I said I would not bother with post that appeared to incoherent owing to laziness or carelessness, I am not being elitist. I'm giving priority in my time budget to people who are respectful enough of my time to spend the their time writing as clear a question as their grasp of English and coding allows. Why should I spend time answering a careless and slapdash post when I could spend that time helping posters who took more of their time writing their questions?   I am perfectly willing to burn a lot of time helping someone struggling to write code in their non-native language. I have a hard enough time coding myself in English that I can't even imagine what a dog's breakfast I would make of it if I had to code in, say, Korean.    I have seen many instances in which questions have been downvoted when a quick glance at the poster's profile gives a strong hint they are not native English speakers. I would like a system that would spare those posters from being downvoted or ignored by using an interface element that clearly communicates in a standardized way whether the poster natively speaks English or not.   I don't see what's elitist about that.    Edit02:   (original unedited) I'm talking about:     Hy, I have a childe view that put it   self over other brother views. The   problem is that when i touch it the   brother also reacts at the touch   event. How can I disable touch   propagation on the underlieng brother   views?   I'm not even exactly sure what he is describing. I can guess that he has a sibling view that extends over its siblings but I'm not sure. If I edited it, I might not end up asking the same question the poster intended.   To answer the question, I will either have to (1) first ask for more detail and then keep checking back until I get it or (2) try to answer what I think the question is and possibly mangle it then have to come back and edit my answer all the while risking a downvote because I answered the wrong question.   I will take the time and the risk of down vote if the poster is not a native English speaker (or is a child) and the confusing question represents their honest best effort. If they're just being lazy, I have other people to help.   I would like a mechanism that would help me decide how to allocate my time and would protect the non-English speaking posters from unjust downvotes. How do you compute the earth's radius at a given geodetic latitude? I've searched websites, written to Mr. Barth and William Safire, scanned bookstore shelves, and buttonholed likely prospects in search of a grammar text that would address matters in the manner of the following, which is from John Barth's "The End of the Road".  If such a text exists, I'd be much obliged to learn of it:  " ... it gives a man a great sense of lucidity and well-being, if not downright formidability, to be able not only to say, but to understand perfectly, that predicate complements of infinitives of copulative verbs without expressed subjects go into the nominative case, whereas predicate complements of infinitives of copulative verbs with expressed subjects go into the objective case.  I made this observation to my assemblage of young scholars and concluded triumphantly, "I was thought to be he, but I thought John to be him."  Thank you. Combinatorial proof of $\sum^{n}_{i=1}\binom{n}{i}i=n2^{n-1}$. Prove that   $$\sum^{n}_{i=1}\binom{n}{i}i=n2^{n-1}$$   I can't find counting interpretations for either of the sides. A hint of "if $S$ is a subset of $\{1, . . . , n\}$ and $S^\prime$ is its complement then $|S| + |S^\prime| = n$" was also given, but I still don't know how to begin. How could I retrieve the exact duplicate value from conditionally formatted list that highlight duplicates? I have imported a webpage table in to Google Sheets. It frequently being updated. A series of calculations has been conducted on the sheet named Shawn Of the link spreadsheet.  I have filtered the my desired results into the Calculation sheet of that linked document... which is in columns A5:A. I then applied =ARRAYFORMULA(if(A5:A200=&quot;&quot;,,A5:A200*{12,13,37,101,111})) in columns B5. The Results of the formula extends from B5:F. This results from a5:F was subsequently conditionally formatted to highlighted duplicates in the aforementioned, i.e. a5:f using the lists of values in K5:K and I5:5. In Columns A5:F, is it possible to generate/place values in the range A5:f with matching name of states and aligned values in J5:K and H5:I? how can I extrude curve shapes onto curve without tapering I'm stuck. Can't figure out how I can extrude a closed curve onto a NURBS curve without it looking tapered.   I notice that when it's set to "2D" there is no tapering, but I want to do it on 3d.  Thanks for help. In  as well as on Wikipedia the radial coordinate of the Schwarzschild metric is described as follows:     ...the r co-ordinate is the value you get by dividing the circumference of the circle by 2π.   This circumvents (no pun intended) the problem of talking about the path outwards from the singularity, but what about the circle itself: does it have the length we would measure when flying around it (however this is done) or is it a virtual circle assuming flat space, i.e. no mass at the center.