tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post125120821088405977..comments2024-03-13T21:26:03.011-07:00Comments on Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher: A Practical Application of Pre-Algebra MathDarrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-45507721166879844502008-06-23T09:37:00.000-07:002008-06-23T09:37:00.000-07:00I think the whole point the article tries to make ...I think the whole point the article tries to make is nonsensical. They seriously seem to argue that the 28mpg choice is the best one, because of the increase over the 18mpg.<BR/><BR/>The key point is not how much you improve, but how many gallons overall you're using, and by that (much more useful and important) metric, 50mpg will win every time.<BR/><BR/>The whole story seems designed to make people feel good about improving their lousy mpg to acceptable mpg.Eowynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216099428141744797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-79684467232410541742008-06-22T19:45:00.000-07:002008-06-22T19:45:00.000-07:00Skip Reuters and try the original Science article ...Skip Reuters and try the original Science article and supplement:<BR/><BR/>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/320/5883/1593<BR/><BR/>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;320/5883/1593/DC1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-79775123628446983512008-06-21T13:05:00.000-07:002008-06-21T13:05:00.000-07:00I agree with Curmudgeon. I understand the concept...I agree with Curmudgeon. I understand the concept of diminishing returns, but reading that article is not the best presentation of it that I've seen. I don't know whether to blame the Duke professor or the Reuters writer for the lack of clarity. I suspect that the Reuters writer is the problem, but have nothing to base that on other than the observation that journalists frequently foul up what they write about.Fritz J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07964038461331789981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-14991197504078005992008-06-21T09:39:00.000-07:002008-06-21T09:39:00.000-07:00Sorry, but I disagree this is readily understandab...Sorry, but I disagree this is readily understandable. This article is tailor-made to screw with the math-phobic. Inconsistent points mixed with really bad quotation (or note-taking) skills<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, it's going into my pre-algebra file for the kids next year. They'll also have to re-write the article for clarity and re-create the table.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Quote:<BR/>"most people think improvements in miles per gallon are all the same, where a 5 gallon per mile improvement ..."<BR/><BR/>Damn. 5 gallons per mile BETTER? What is this, a freight train?<BR/><BR/>Then the article suddenly changes from talking about comparing gals/100 miles to a calculation for gals/10000 miles.<BR/><BR/>Then we have reporting like this: "Cars with the highest miles per gallon are always the most fuel efficient, he said." Wow. I guess that's why the management professor at Duke University gets the big bucks.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323026187622872114noreply@blogger.com