Can you answer me a question: why do you (and the other continental chaps) measure fuel consumption backwards? Wouldn't it be more intuitive to measure it in kilometers per litre, since a bigger number indicates a better performance? Most measures of efficiency are that way round - what you get over what you put in.
If you'd read the linked article you'd see that they do have one, but some drivers just ignore them. Sometimes simplest is the best - have a gantry (which could also be used for signs & lights) at a good stopping distance before the bridge with a fringe of chains or a lightweight bar hanging down so that if a vehicle that's too tall goes under, it makes a fearsome clattering without doing serious damage. You never know, it might be enough to make the driver close his mobile phone...
I was hoping for one of those horsedrawn ones, with those up-and-down pump handles and lots of brass. It would fit the 'Olde English Village' image too.
IMHO part of a solution here would be to change things such that the only thing someone can do if they know the bank account details on these records is to put money into these accounts.
You really think that someone can withdraw money from an account just by knowing the number of it?
The I series was little more than an armoured car with two _medium_ machineguns in a turret. They were intended to be training tanks, but got pressed into the war because of lack of anything better.
A weak tank relative to other tanks - but a tank nonetheless; it still beats a chap on horseback waving a spear.
The rest of it is spot on. Russian stuff was crude but effective.
Perhaps there's some mysterious organisation that splits up couples and engineers chance meetings and suchlike to manipulate the bloodline. No, on second thoughts that's way too far-fetched.
You seem to expect, on the basis of fl oz to a pint, that the expected ratio would be 0.75. But even if the fluid ounces were the same, you'd be wrong, for the reasons stated.
A British fluid ounce is s-l-i-g-h-t-l-y smaller than the US fluid ounce. So a US pint isn't 0.75 of an old British pint
There are two reasons for that. One is, as you mention, that the fluid ounces aren't the same - the difference would barely show up on non-lab equipment. But the major reason is that 16/20 is 4/5, or 0.8.
Slashdot Mirror
Sir, you are to talking like a Limey what an elephant is to pole vaulting, and a three legged elephant at that.
Can you answer me a question: why do you (and the other continental chaps) measure fuel consumption backwards? Wouldn't it be more intuitive to measure it in kilometers per litre, since a bigger number indicates a better performance? Most measures of efficiency are that way round - what you get over what you put in.
It isn't? I certainly wouldn't advise breathing it in any great concentration.
If you'd read the linked article you'd see that they do have one, but some drivers just ignore them. Sometimes simplest is the best - have a gantry (which could also be used for signs & lights) at a good stopping distance before the bridge with a fringe of chains or a lightweight bar hanging down so that if a vehicle that's too tall goes under, it makes a fearsome clattering without doing serious damage. You never know, it might be enough to make the driver close his mobile phone...
I was hoping for one of those horsedrawn ones, with those up-and-down pump handles and lots of brass. It would fit the 'Olde English Village' image too.
Even so the law takes effect when the act's passed (at the very earliest). Announcing the mere intention to create a law has no weight at all.
On the other hand, consistently telling a kid he's a genius when in fact he's a bit of a tard will just make him into an arrogant tard.
Now get back to work!
The rest of it is spot on. Russian stuff was crude but effective.
You seem to expect, on the basis of fl oz to a pint, that the expected ratio would be 0.75. But even if the fluid ounces were the same, you'd be wrong, for the reasons stated.
Better hope nobody invents a bulletproof tank, then. I'll be the end of freedom as we know it.
Does UK law have a defence that boils down to not being a free agent, i.e. you had no influence over the events?