But this is a story about Oxford FFS, the cultural heart of the English language, UK version.
I've got a great new idea that will revolutionize the commercia airline industry. Do I have to build an airplane to keep my patent.
It is extremely unlikely that you have an idea that will really "revolutionize the commercial airline industry" unless you are already so familiar with it that you will be in the aircraft industry already. Even if you do, the best thing will be to get into the industry yourself first to promote it.
There are too many "armchair inventors" who are out of touch with the field in which they believe they have revolutionary inventions, unless it is really trivial like a revolutionary clothes peg. I once worked for a railway company (London Underground) as an engineer, and among other things I had the job of assessing technical suggestions sent in by members of the public, briefing the Chief Mech. Engineer on them, and writing back to the author. Most of them were completely crackpot, based on the same sort of pseudo-science as perpetual motion machinery. Typically, they considered static stability but neglected dynamic stablity, or (like the one about blowing the trains along by filling the tunnel with compressed air) neglected the fact that we needed to run trains at close intervals. (That one also neglected the fact that it costs money to compress air - they thought compressed air was free).
During my time there, being in a "think tank" type of branch, I made some suggestions for improvements myself; but to be honest I think that the outsiders' suggestions got more attention than my own did! I was particularly peeved when one of my suggestions was rejected as "impractical", yet two years later I saw that the Japanese had introduced trains with the same idea - they had invented it quite independently. Different inventors Inventing the same thing is quite common (photography, jet engines, TV etc) when a need for it arises.
He's not a particularly good poster child for someone living in poverty either, living on his island on the Thames in South West London. He's just overextended his finances, and has an overextended sense of entitlement to match.
Agreed. He is living in one of the most expensive spots in London. While "He built the house
Sounds to me like a lost business opportunity.
I don't think you know Norfolk. I am suprised they have even got as far as installing land-line phones there, let alone selling Cupurtino products. I think they will stick to selling cider.
I had a little look at what office would cost me. £220($340) for the crippled version £389.99($605) for the full version.
The geek always quotes retail list for the most expensive version of Office he can find. The odds are quite good, of course, that he qualifies for the academic or professional discount.
I see that tuppe666 has already replied that he does not qualify for such discounts, and neither do I as it happens.
But I also notice that Westlake has dropped the £ (GBP) prices leaving only the dollars, so I guess he is in the USA. Tuppe666's prices might seem shocking, but the fact that he gives the prices in £(GBP) first shows he is in the UK (as I am) where the prices ARE shocking. What he quotes is a fair example in that they are Curry's store prices [www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/office-software/323_3082_30146_xx_xx/xx-criteria.html], and Currys here are the dominant IT retailer. The only other retailers I could reasonably get to in person are small outfits where the prices are generally higher still, last time I looked.
Yes, you can buy cheaper on-line (even from Currys) but the average Joe would prefer the shop because the buttering-up he gets from the sales-person helps to ease his FUD about buying anything technical.
it's simply about insulation. Buildings and houses can save 90% of energy used by simply insulating things like attics and walls. Boring I know.
I don't know about New York, but most houses in the UK are already insulated up to the hilt. There may be another 5% to gain if you add another yard of insulation, but it is diminishing returns. 90% less? (Do they really mean using only one tenth the energy they do now?) - no way! Even starting from a base of no insulation (like my parents' house did) there was no-where near a 90% gain. More like 30%
To get 90% gain you would need to knock all buildings down and start with something fundamentally different. Airlock doors for a start, like into a microchip factory clean-room.
Automatics still have a neutral gear. Most people don't use it
I always start in neutral if I am going off forward. I can only start in Park or Neutral and if I start in Park I must pull through Reverse on the way to Drive [P-R-D-3-2-1) which gives an irritating backward jerk. I also put it in neutral at most red lights as the engine pulling against the final drive through the torque converter will be using more fuel. Traffic lights take ages to change in the UK.
Nevermind that the parking brake is nothing more than a manual engagement of the same brake system. If the brake system isn't working for whatever reason that little manual handle or pedal isn't going to do a thing.
In the UK it is a legal requirement that the handbrake does not use the same system as the footbrake, except for the shoes themselves, which are far less likely to fail than the means of actuating them. Thus the footbrake system is hydraulic (usually) and the handbrake is Bowden cable.
As it happens, though in the UK I have an American car, but it is the same and no different from the USA models in this respect I understand, so I guess the law is the same there.
I would recommend against this practice [coasting] mainly for security reasons. You may suddenly need to accelerate to avoid an accident.
In many years of driving I have never once needed to accelerate to avoid an accident - except when overtaking, when of course I am certainly not going to be in neutral. Can you give an example of how this could occur - passing a red light and realising you need to get clear of the intersection asap perhaps? Not my style. I confess I did used to coast downhill years ago (college days) but do not do this today as (as others have said) modern cars shut off all fuel on the overrun.
Your advice on "security" grounds is very dated - it originated in the days when car brakes were quite poor, final drive ratios were quite low and the engine drag was a significant part of the effect. I actually have my Grandfather's "How to Drive a Motor Car" handbook from the 1930's that explains this. However, in all my own cars over the last 20 years (all larger cars), the retarding effect of the engine on the overrun is near negligable. I have also driven small cars where it is an appreciable effect however.
Avoid strange women and temporary variables.