There's an add-on called "is it compatible" that shows what Firefox versions your add-ons are compatible with. I haven't installed it, but it is supposed to list compatibility right in the add-ons page so you can look for things that don't go "up to 4".

AdBlock Plus, Ghostery, and NoScript are three add-ons I won't run Firefox without, and they've all been compatible since the early days of the beta.

In addition to the "Tabs on Top" change mentioned in the other reply to your post, you can easily move the buttons around to your liking. Right-click on any of the buttons, click "Customize", and drag buttons around to your heart's content. I have mine set up as Back/Forward, Home, Reload, Shortcuts, Stop, URL/AwesomeBar, Google Search, then the buttons for AdblockPlus and NoScript, and finally Feedback. Took me a lot less time to change them than it took me to list them in this post. ;)

What?

The systems are on a UPS. UPSes use batteries. Batteries are DC. So, if you want to use a UPS, you have AC coming in that has to be converted to DC (to charge the batteries) and the AC power goes through the UPS to the computer, which converts it to DC. When the power goes out, the DC is taken from the battery, converted to AC, sent to the computer, then the power supply converts it to DC to run the computer.

With a DC computer, you need one conversion, AC to DC. The same DC can be used to charge the batteries and run the computer, and when the power goes out the battery can run the computer directly with no additional conversion.

So if anything the exact opposite of your assertion is true. There are either the same number of conversions (done through a central converter so you can afford a really efficient one) if you're on street power, or there are two fewer conversions and almost no loss when you're running on battery.

As for a Prius, the efficiency in those is in the fact that you can have a much smaller engine (since the electric motor and the gasoline engine can "team up" when you need a lot of acceleration) and the gasoline motor doesn't need to run when the car is moving slowly or sitting still (the battery can drive the car most of the time, and regenerative braking can reclaim a good percentage of momentum and turn it back into battery charge, so the gas motor only comes on when the battery gets low or when more acceleration than the battery can provide is needed). It's more complicated, certainly, but the whole point is to use what power the gasoline engine is generating more efficiently by storing what's not immediately used and using it later.

You mean the batteries they'd need if they were running the thing off an AC-based UPS, only they need fewer of them because the power stored in them can be used directly by the computers rather than running it though a DC-to-AC conversion then back through an AC-to-DC conversion in order to power the computers?

The point here is increased efficiency, not some magical faerie dust that makes the system 100% efficient.

If you have a UPS, you're going to need to change battery packs on the same interval regardless. The point here is that the computers could use the DC battery pretty much directly in a backup power situation, as opposed to the additional complexity of an AC-to-DC to charge the battery, a DC-to-AC to power the 120VAC power plug into the computer, and an additional AC-to-DC inside the computer itself. That's a whole lot of inefficient conversions, and a whole lot of extra bits that could go wrong.

Putting fewer bits in the system almost always increases reliability. Once you've converted to DC, you have battery charge and computer usage all on the DC side. It's not only more efficient, it's probably going to be more reliable.

Arwen and Aragorn were a love interest in the original books, it just wasn't hammered into the reader every page or two like the movies felt it necessary to do in nearly every scene. It was actually kinda important to the theme, but cutting half the "mystical connection through the crystal faerie" dream sequences could have left room for Bombadil or the enslavement of the Shire.

  There was also the love interest between Sam and Rosie, which I think was handled pretty well in the movies (though in the books it was an additional bit of suspense in the enslavement of the Shire, so there wasn't a whole lot of point covering it except to give Sam a strong reason not to want to leave, and demonstrate how strong his character is).

But no, I don't recall any love interest in The Hobbit other than maybe something about Bard (the archer who kills Smaug). I think he was either married or had the village women mooning over him or something. But it was not a major plot device. If nothing else, that archer could have a love interest created for him out of whole cloth without mucking up the central plot too terribly much, as long as they don't make it too important (his wife is imprisoned by Smaug or something?).

Given "The Two Towers: The Battle For Helm's Deep - A Love Story", I sincerely doubt the Battle of Five Armies is going to get cut. It's all the stuff about a ring and stuff that's going to get cut instead, and replaced with a few love interests and extra footage of the Battle of Five Armies. The extended version might add back in a few piffling details, like Gollum and the Ring, etc..

I'm very much looking forward to The Hobbit done as a movie, I'm sure it'll be very good (especially considering the previous attempts to film The Hobbit, but you could watch Silent Running and call it a remake of The Hobbit and it would work better than the previous attempts), but I share your irkage in Jackson's selection of scenes. I just think his focus is going to be the opposite of what you suggest - the violent bits will certainly be taking center stage.

It depends. I have service with AT&T and we bought an unlocked phone because her original AT&T-issued phone just wasn't to her liking. We simply took the GSM chip out of her old phone, plugged it into her new phone, and Bob's your uncle. Worked great. No need to contact AT&T, and no need for a data plan at all since the unlocked phone has WiFi and AT&T can't stop us from using it (and my wife is OK with only having data at home and saving $25+ a month).

Of course, we still don't get a discount, but at least once her contract is up we'll go month-to-month (and you can do that from the get-go with "bring your own device").

It's even got a slot for a second SIM chip should we ever decide to get a data plan elsewhere.

You CAN separate the carrier from the phone, if you buy the phone first and choose a carrier that allows

StraightTalk does not, no. And it's unfortunate, because their pricing is actually relatively good, but you're locked into their (relatively limited) selection of phones. My father signed up for them last month, and other than a few minor quibbles he's saving a good chunk of money on his cell plan, and has more minutes and data than he knows what to do with. And if he gets sick of them, he's not under a contract (of course, he's paid basically retail for the phone, so there's no reason for him to be under contract - he basically paid the ETF up front).

I'm still looking for a "bring your own phone" GSM plan with good pricing. I had hopes for StraightTalk, but they don't do bring-your-own.

My wife's AT&T plan is up soon, and we're already using an unlocked Nokia MusicExpress on her plan because her original phone didn't meet her needs. Her parents, on the same plan, were forced into buying new phones two months ago when AT&T made a service change that rendered their 18-month-old phones (that AT&T provided) incompatible with AT&T's towers. AT&T tried to get them to sign up for an additional two years in return for free phones, but I bought them both unlocked $40 GSM handsets to avoid the forced renewal.

So we're all done with subsidized phones, they aren't worth it.