Reflecting cold

[Lieutenant Scott]

There is so little atmosphere up there, that there is negligible conduction to take your heat away.

James Lovelock sounds like a knowledgeable and sensible bloke.

[Lieutenant Scott]

That explain the greenhouse effect completely. And here was me thinking the government made it all up....

[Lieutenant Scott]

smaller than Tom's."

Synonym?

[Lieutenant Scott]

No rush for me, the supplier is fully booked until the cut off date DAMN IT!

[Lieutenant Scott]

Oh, my house was BUILT in 79.

No fins on any of the original radiators. I have a catalogue

What a strange idea. 70C is 70C, you can't have a more comfortable 70C.=

[Frank Erskine]

times smaller than Tom's."

Not at all.

Envious is what you may be when you haven't something that somebody else has. "I'm envious of John because of his gorgeous wife" sort of thing.

Jealous is that you want to keep something to yourself (think - "a jealously-guarded trade secret").

HTH -

[Alan Braggins]

There could be parts of the universe which are outside the light cone of the event on earth. They wouldn't ever be affected.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That depends on you thinking that gravity waves are limited by the speed of light.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

This house was built some time before 1851, the date of the first Ordnance Survey map of the area.

I don't think 70C would be a comfortable temperature in any circumstances.

70F would be the temperature the room thermostat would be set to as would 65F back in 1965 when that was the recommended temperature for living rooms.

There is some anecdotal evidence that underfloor heating produces a comfortable environment at a lower air temperature than panel radiators and skirting radiators might possibly have a slight effect in that direction as well.

[Alan Braggins]

If you can show they aren't, there's a Nobel prize in it for you.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Is nothing to do with choice of grammar.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Buffoon.

Think of ratios. A ratio of 5 times is 1 to 5. The other way is 5:1.

[Roger Chapman]

Yes you are.

In order to communicate we use certain symbols (an observation that applies equally to words and figures). You are quite correct to say that

1:5 and 5:1 are two instantly recognisable ratios but you are not using that symbol in your 'five times less'. 'Times' in a arithmetic sense means multiply. Multiply and divide are two sides of the same coin. If the size of an answer to a calculation is less than the number you started with then the action is division, not multiplication. You could of course multiply by a fraction to get your answer but that merely transfers the division from the main calculation to the fraction. In words 5:1 and 1:5 are five times and one fifth. Introduce 'less' into the equation and the fraction is not one fifth less but four fifths less.

[Roger Chapman]

Just to add to what I wrote a moment ago.

To express the ratios 5:1 and 1:5 in words we say five to one and one to five. Times doesn't appear and indeed five times one and one times five are two ways of saying the same thing.

5:1 and 1:5 could just as easily be written 5/1 and 1/5 and often is, '/' being the symbol for divide. Unlike 'x' when using '/' the order is of vital importance.

[Tim Streater]

Yes. We really need a new expression: "five divide less" to go with "five times more".

Of course, it's part of the illiteracy of the age that people cannot distinguish between multiply and divide.

[Alan Braggins]

Your refusal to accept that the meaning of words can depend on context is subtly different from "illiteracy", and unlikely to be specific to "the age".

[Lieutenant Scott]

No dumbass, you are dividing by one, go back to school. =A3100 is twice= as rich as =A350.

Nobody says that, you made it up. Are you one of those fools that can't= understand 500% increases?

[Tim Streater]

No, Lootenant, we're not *dividing* at all. We're making something

*smaller* by a certain amount. If we make it smaller by the whole of it (i.e. one times it), there won't be anything left, will there. So only a dimbo would say you could make something smaller by more than one times it.

Are you a dimbo, Lootenant?

[Lieutenant Scott]

I am going by the common use. If someone tells me that something is "tw= ice as expensive", I expect to pay =A3100 instead of =A350. I don't exp= ect to pay =A3150.

Same goes for "twice as cheap". =A350 instead of =A3100.

[Tim Streater]

Definitely a dimbo. And that should be "mothers-in-law" in your sig.