But, after reading that website, apparently I'm not really saving much from one to the other.
About 1.3 cents per mile by my calculation (and Google’s) – assuming gas costs $2.599, which is a bit higher than I paid for it this morning. That’s about a quarter (26 cents or so) for a 20-mile commute... and you save about 5:49 of driving time.
If the numbers were in gallons-per-hundred-miles (GPHM), Joe the plumber would see that the choice is trading in his 10GPHM pickup in for a 6.7GPHM pickup vs. trading in his wife's 3.3GPHM car for a 2.63GPHM car.
I’m afraid you may be greatly overestimating Joe the plumber.
It has nothing to do with percentage. It’s entirely focused on the magnitude of the savings.
Going from 10 to 20 MPG saves 0.05 gallons per mile. Going from 33 to 50 saves about 0.01 gallons per mile.
That translates to a 50% and 34% savings, respectively, but they weren’t asking you to compare the percentages.
People just don’t understand the law of diminishing returns. End of story. Even if you are going to change to a linear system, so that people would be able to intuitively tell which of the two choices actually saved more gas (by volume per mile), people still won’t understand that the vehicle manufacturers are facing real diminishing returns in their design improvements. It gets more and more expensive to squeeze a few more miles from each gallon.
Sure it was. If you have a 10 MPG car and a 33 MPG car, you could either replace the 10 MPG car with a 20 MPG car and drive that... or you could just drive the 33 MPG car, which saves more gas than driving either of the others. And replacing the 33 MPG car with a 50 MPG car would save even more gas still. Just don’t drive the 10 MPG car... drive the 50 MPG car instead.
Assuming you don’t care which vehicle you drive, that makes perfect sense. (Obviously most people with more than one car drive them different amounts and use them for different purposes... which is why I think this whole question is overly simplistic to begin with.)
I’ve noticed exactly the opposite (and it bears upon what you said in your last paragraph, I think).
The high-octane fuel is usually made by adding more ethanol, as that is the cheap way of raising the octane, and my gas mileage went down when I tried filling up with that. My car isn’t necessarily designed to require high-octane gas, though...
Get an app to manage startup entries. Or, if you’re feeling adventurous, look up the registry keys where the startup entries are stored and learn how to disable them yourself... and get ready to go digging through their preferences when you discover that actually using the program causes it to check to make sure its startup entry is installed and it reinstalls it without asking you. Quicktime, I’m looking at you.
Note, part of learning how to disable them includes learning which ones are important and which can be disabled. For a beginner I recommend using google.
Even if you run it from an admin account, it isn’t really running with admin privileges. It sandboxes itself to prevent exploits and as such it can’t just go haphazardly changing stuff in the system.
However it should be able to spawn a new process as admin, getting the admin password if necessary, and that admin process could uninstall whatever you wanted. That’s how it should work.
Not true... extensions can also be part of a plugin, and as such if the plugin cannot be uninstalled neither can the extension be.
The Java Quick Start extension was like that. I couldn’t uninstall it, but when I shut down Firefox and deleted the.dll for the Java Quick Start plugin, when I restarted Firefox the extension had vanished too.
Firefox can't uninstall the extension (especially when it's run from an account that isn't even an administrator)
Wrong... heard of rights escalation? UAC?
nor should it (because that would hurt other users)
Wrong... if I have the admin password, it should let me do stuff that would affect other users. If I have the admin password you can assume by default that I’m trying to administrate the computer and not trying to “hurt other users”.
Where is it? Where is the add-on? I want to delete it for godssakes. If it won’t let me uninstall from Firefox (which is stupid; ask me for the admin password and get the rights escalated if need be), then tell me where it is so I can delete it from Windows Explorer.
Of course you can delete it. It's just files on a disk. You can't delete files on a disk?
What you can't do is disable it from inside Firefox. And why is that? Because that's how Firefox was designed.
It’s bloody wrong and I want it fixed.
Yes, it’s installed as a system-wide extension and can’t be uninstalled by a user-level program. That is what UAC is for: to elevate privileges out of the user level so I can perform admin actions (such as uninstalling system-wide extensions).
I want a button with the little UAC access-control icon (the shield) next to “Uninstall”, so that I know I can’t uninstall it unless I’m an administrator. Maybe put a little warning message “uninstalling this extension will affect all users on this computer... you must be an administrator to perform this action...”
I want to click the button, be presented with a UAC prompt, type the administrator password, and have the damn extension uninstalled.
That is how things are supposed to work.
In the meantime, how do I uninstall it? I hate having greyed-out disabled extensions cluttering up my list of extensions. (Same goes for plugins, actually.)
If the toolbar exists (either because Windows Update installed it automatically, or because somebody for some reason actually installed the toolbar manually), then Windows Update will automatically update the toolbar. It does not install the toolbar, only updates it.
The update also installs an extension for both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox... and nobody seems to know what the extension is for or what it does.
The extension is not the toolbar, and it does not seem to be an update to the toolbar. It just comes piggy-backed with an update to the toolbar.
"It has been very useful using Obsession (for Men) to get the jaguars in front of these camera traps... and that allows us to estimate with greater confidence the genders and the numbers that live in each studied site."
So... which gender seemed to like the cologne better?
The right correct answer (the one they didn’t ask for) is to subtract the inverse of the numbers, weighted by the number of miles driven in each vehicle.
Admittedly it only changes the results if you drive the 33 MPG car at least five times as much as the 10 MPG car... but even so, I don’t think very many people (even Americans) own vehicles that get 10 MPG or less.
The question has nothing to do with total amount fuel used.
Ok, it doesn’t have to do with total fuel used?
people who can move from a 10 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle... will reduce total consumption more than the people who now have a 33 mpg car and buy a car that gets 50 mpg.
Ok, now it does have to do with total fuel used?
It has everything to do with total fuel used... per vehicle, per mile. Say you drive them each 1,000 miles.
Car A, 10 MPG, uses 100 gal. Car B, 20 MPG, uses 50 gal. Car C, 33 MPG, uses 30.3 gal. Car D, 50 MPG, uses 20 gal.
So the question is, which is better (in terms of gallons of gasoline saved per mile driven): replacing car A with car B or replacing car C with car D? The first: it saves 50 gallons over the 1,000 miles, whereas the latter saves only 10.3 gallons. So the first is about 5 times better, in terms of dollars saved per mile driven.
A million people cutting their fuel usage by 50% will cut total consumption more than a million people cutting their fuel usage by 33%.
If they drive the same amount, then yes. People don’t all drive the same amount... and people with gas-guzzlers probably tend to drive them less. Many Americans have two cars, and if one of them is a gas guzzler guess which one gets driven most of the time...
A similar pitfall is exploited by the debt restructuring advisers who try to get you to roll all of your debts into one low-interest rate... including debts that already had a lower rate than the one they are offering... and despite the fact that if you restructured only the highest-rate debts, then paid off the middle-high debts as quickly as possible and made minimum payments on all of the rest you might be able to come out ahead in the long run (obviously it’d take some planning, based on how much you can afford to pay and the rates of interest on all of them).
Changing from car A to car B gives you a 100% savings in fuel consumption. Changing from car C to car D gives you an approx. %50 savings in fuel consumption. Which is better?
Bzzt, wrong again. The correct question was:
Changing from car A to car B gives you a 0.05 gallon/mile savings in fuel consumption. Changing from car C to car D gives you an 0.0103 gallon/mile savings in fuel consumption. Which saves more fuel per mile?
The answer is, changing from car A to car B saves more fuel per mile... and hence is “better” assuming you drive them equally. In fact, if you drive car C (33 MPG) 5x more than you drive car A (10 MPG), you’re better off replacing it.
So not only is their article pedantic, it’s also overly simplistic. If you have a 10 MPG gas-guzzling full-sized van that you really only use when you’re hauling stuff or helping someone move, it’s probably not worth your money to replace it with a new van that manages to pull 20 MPG out of your gas dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
Rotating everything 90 degrees would be even more disconcerting, I think.
You can get something that tastes like Pepsi. It’s called Diet Coke.
Hmm, that might be outdated. Looks like this is probably the way to go...
%programfiles%\Mozilla Firefox\searchplugins\google.xml
<SearchPlugin xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/2006/browser/search/">
<ShortName>Google</ShortName>
<Description>Google Search</Description>
<InputEncoding>UTF-8</InputEncoding>
<Image width="16" height="16">data:image/png;base64, [snip] </Image>
<Url type="application/x-suggestions+json" method="GET" template="http://suggestqueries.google.com/complete/search?output=firefox&client=firefox&hl={moz:locale}&q={searchTerms}"/>
<Url type="text/html" method="GET" template="http://www.google.com/search">
<Param name="q" value="{searchTerms}"/>
<Param name="ie" value="utf-8"/>
<Param name="oe" value="utf-8"/>
<Param name="aq" value="t"/>
<!-- Dynamic parameters -->
<Param name="rls" value="{moz:distributionID}:{moz:locale}:{moz:official}"/>
<MozParam name="client" condition="defaultEngine" trueValue="firefox-a" falseValue="firefox"/>
</Url>
<SearchForm>http://www.google.com/firefox</SearchForm>
</SearchPlugin>
Add in there somewhere in the list...
<Param name="safe" value="off"/>
Shut down Firefox, make the change, restart (of course).
http://oreilly.com/pub/h/3033
Build your own Firefox search engine plugin with the &safe=off option in the search URL template.
But, after reading that website, apparently I'm not really saving much from one to the other.
About 1.3 cents per mile by my calculation (and Google’s) – assuming gas costs $2.599, which is a bit higher than I paid for it this morning. That’s about a quarter (26 cents or so) for a 20-mile commute... and you save about 5:49 of driving time.
If the numbers were in gallons-per-hundred-miles (GPHM), Joe the plumber would see that the choice is trading in his 10GPHM pickup in for a 6.7GPHM pickup vs. trading in his wife's 3.3GPHM car for a 2.63GPHM car.
I’m afraid you may be greatly overestimating Joe the plumber.
It has nothing to do with percentage. It’s entirely focused on the magnitude of the savings.
Going from 10 to 20 MPG saves 0.05 gallons per mile. Going from 33 to 50 saves about 0.01 gallons per mile.
That translates to a 50% and 34% savings, respectively, but they weren’t asking you to compare the percentages.
People just don’t understand the law of diminishing returns. End of story. Even if you are going to change to a linear system, so that people would be able to intuitively tell which of the two choices actually saved more gas (by volume per mile), people still won’t understand that the vehicle manufacturers are facing real diminishing returns in their design improvements. It gets more and more expensive to squeeze a few more miles from each gallon.
No, that’s a lighter, which is less heavy than a liter (just like a litre of donuts are lighter than a liter of doughnuts).
Solution: Don’t drive the 10 MPG car at all, upgrade the 33 MPG car, drive all 660 miles in the 50 MPG car, and save even more gas.
Sure it was. If you have a 10 MPG car and a 33 MPG car, you could either replace the 10 MPG car with a 20 MPG car and drive that... or you could just drive the 33 MPG car, which saves more gas than driving either of the others. And replacing the 33 MPG car with a 50 MPG car would save even more gas still. Just don’t drive the 10 MPG car... drive the 50 MPG car instead.
Assuming you don’t care which vehicle you drive, that makes perfect sense. (Obviously most people with more than one car drive them different amounts and use them for different purposes... which is why I think this whole question is overly simplistic to begin with.)
It doesn’t need to go around the 2nd time all if we can all agree that it made 2 laps already. Anyone who says differently must have counted wrong.
I’ve noticed exactly the opposite (and it bears upon what you said in your last paragraph, I think).
The high-octane fuel is usually made by adding more ethanol, as that is the cheap way of raising the octane, and my gas mileage went down when I tried filling up with that. My car isn’t necessarily designed to require high-octane gas, though...
Get an app to manage startup entries. Or, if you’re feeling adventurous, look up the registry keys where the startup entries are stored and learn how to disable them yourself... and get ready to go digging through their preferences when you discover that actually using the program causes it to check to make sure its startup entry is installed and it reinstalls it without asking you. Quicktime, I’m looking at you.
Note, part of learning how to disable them includes learning which ones are important and which can be disabled. For a beginner I recommend using google.
Even if you run it from an admin account, it isn’t really running with admin privileges. It sandboxes itself to prevent exploits and as such it can’t just go haphazardly changing stuff in the system.
However it should be able to spawn a new process as admin, getting the admin password if necessary, and that admin process could uninstall whatever you wanted. That’s how it should work.
Not true... extensions can also be part of a plugin, and as such if the plugin cannot be uninstalled neither can the extension be.
The Java Quick Start extension was like that. I couldn’t uninstall it, but when I shut down Firefox and deleted the .dll for the Java Quick Start plugin, when I restarted Firefox the extension had vanished too.
Firefox can't uninstall the extension (especially when it's run from an account that isn't even an administrator)
Wrong... heard of rights escalation? UAC?
nor should it (because that would hurt other users)
Wrong... if I have the admin password, it should let me do stuff that would affect other users. If I have the admin password you can assume by default that I’m trying to administrate the computer and not trying to “hurt other users”.
Where is it? Where is the add-on? I want to delete it for godssakes. If it won’t let me uninstall from Firefox (which is stupid; ask me for the admin password and get the rights escalated if need be), then tell me where it is so I can delete it from Windows Explorer.
Of course you can delete it. It's just files on a disk. You can't delete files on a disk?
What you can't do is disable it from inside Firefox. And why is that? Because that's how Firefox was designed.
It’s bloody wrong and I want it fixed.
Yes, it’s installed as a system-wide extension and can’t be uninstalled by a user-level program. That is what UAC is for: to elevate privileges out of the user level so I can perform admin actions (such as uninstalling system-wide extensions).
I want a button with the little UAC access-control icon (the shield) next to “Uninstall”, so that I know I can’t uninstall it unless I’m an administrator. Maybe put a little warning message “uninstalling this extension will affect all users on this computer... you must be an administrator to perform this action...”
I want to click the button, be presented with a UAC prompt, type the administrator password, and have the damn extension uninstalled.
That is how things are supposed to work.
In the meantime, how do I uninstall it? I hate having greyed-out disabled extensions cluttering up my list of extensions. (Same goes for plugins, actually.)
Both.
If the toolbar exists (either because Windows Update installed it automatically, or because somebody for some reason actually installed the toolbar manually), then Windows Update will automatically update the toolbar. It does not install the toolbar, only updates it.
The update also installs an extension for both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox... and nobody seems to know what the extension is for or what it does.
The extension is not the toolbar, and it does not seem to be an update to the toolbar. It just comes piggy-backed with an update to the toolbar.
Good thing they’re just filming the cats, not hunting them... or curiosity killed the cat.
"It has been very useful using Obsession (for Men) to get the jaguars in front of these camera traps ... and that allows us to estimate with greater confidence the genders and the numbers that live in each studied site."
So... which gender seemed to like the cologne better?
The right correct answer (the one they didn’t ask for) is to subtract the inverse of the numbers, weighted by the number of miles driven in each vehicle.
a/10 - a/20 = 0.10a - 0.05a = Saves 0.05a gallons
b/33 - b/50 = 0.03b - 0.02b = Saves 0.01b gallons
Admittedly it only changes the results if you drive the 33 MPG car at least five times as much as the 10 MPG car... but even so, I don’t think very many people (even Americans) own vehicles that get 10 MPG or less.
Wow. Just wow.
The question has nothing to do with total amount fuel used.
Ok, it doesn’t have to do with total fuel used?
people who can move from a 10 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle ... will reduce total consumption more than the people who now have a 33 mpg car and buy a car that gets 50 mpg.
Ok, now it does have to do with total fuel used?
It has everything to do with total fuel used... per vehicle, per mile. Say you drive them each 1,000 miles.
Car A, 10 MPG, uses 100 gal.
Car B, 20 MPG, uses 50 gal.
Car C, 33 MPG, uses 30.3 gal.
Car D, 50 MPG, uses 20 gal.
So the question is, which is better (in terms of gallons of gasoline saved per mile driven): replacing car A with car B or replacing car C with car D? The first: it saves 50 gallons over the 1,000 miles, whereas the latter saves only 10.3 gallons. So the first is about 5 times better, in terms of dollars saved per mile driven.
A million people cutting their fuel usage by 50% will cut total consumption more than a million people cutting their fuel usage by 33%.
If they drive the same amount, then yes. People don’t all drive the same amount... and people with gas-guzzlers probably tend to drive them less. Many Americans have two cars, and if one of them is a gas guzzler guess which one gets driven most of the time...
A similar pitfall is exploited by the debt restructuring advisers who try to get you to roll all of your debts into one low-interest rate... including debts that already had a lower rate than the one they are offering... and despite the fact that if you restructured only the highest-rate debts, then paid off the middle-high debts as quickly as possible and made minimum payments on all of the rest you might be able to come out ahead in the long run (obviously it’d take some planning, based on how much you can afford to pay and the rates of interest on all of them).
P.S. You meant a 50% savings and a 34% savings. A 100% savings would be a car that used no gas at all.
The 20 MPG car uses 50% less gas than the 10 MPG car.
The 10 MPG car used 100% more gas than the 20 MPG car.
The 50 MPG car uses 34% less gas than the 33 MPG car.
The 33 MPG car used 51.5% more gas than the 50 MPG car.
Yes, it’s confusing. You’re welcome.
However, the correct question was:
Changing from car A to car B gives you a 100% savings in fuel consumption. Changing from car C to car D gives you an approx. %50 savings in fuel consumption. Which is better?
Bzzt, wrong again. The correct question was:
Changing from car A to car B gives you a 0.05 gallon/mile savings in fuel consumption. Changing from car C to car D gives you an 0.0103 gallon/mile savings in fuel consumption. Which saves more fuel per mile?
The answer is, changing from car A to car B saves more fuel per mile... and hence is “better” assuming you drive them equally. In fact, if you drive car C (33 MPG) 5x more than you drive car A (10 MPG), you’re better off replacing it.
So not only is their article pedantic, it’s also overly simplistic. If you have a 10 MPG gas-guzzling full-sized van that you really only use when you’re hauling stuff or helping someone move, it’s probably not worth your money to replace it with a new van that manages to pull 20 MPG out of your gas dollar.