"Two shots and a splash of water" sounds better...

This is shocking! What with his well known respect for women and all... Next you're going to tell me he was a mass murderer!

No kidding - 1,000,000 rupees, maybe...

... and TightVNC.

That is the opposite of what one should do! When you coast with the clutch pedal pushed (clutch disengaged) the ECU supplies gas to the cylinders to keep the engine idling.

When you have the clutch engaged (pedal out - in gear) and are coasting (no throttle) the wheels the vehicle's momentum pulls the engine over and the ECU cuts off the fuel supply. No fuel is used when "engine braking".

Coasting on a flat road is pointless as you will slow down too much and use more fuel accelerating back up to speed than you would save by idling the engine. Coasting with the clutch engages on a downhill stretch will use fuel to keep the engine running, while leaving it in gear and getting off the throttle will use no fuel for that time/distance.

Think about it - take the engine out of the car and put a handle on the crank - you can turn it with your own hand. This is done all the time to properly position the cams when replacing the timing belt. Why is it hard to believe that thousands of lbs. of moving car can't do that? The friction of moving turning the engine without fuel is what slows you down when gearing down. It's often good practise to be in a lower gear and off the throttle when descending a steep hill - the engine resistance will slow you or keep you at a constant speed. If there were fuel being fed to the engine to "keep it running" then there would be no braking effect.

I know this is the case with a manual transmission, but IIRC, there are instances where an automatic still feeds a tiny amount of fuel during "rundown".