Target stores unit pricing on paper goods.
the zak
towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
to do in the aisle of the Target store.
Robert Neville
That's interesting. The model regulation for unit pricing states that if the
product is sold on the basis of units ("100 sheets"), then the unit price is
quantity 1. OTOH, if the product is sold on the basis of area, then the unit
price needs to be related to area.
http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/upload/12_IV_UnitpricReg-06-H130-FINAL.pdf
So the question is: what are the units on the package itself?
And of course, states are free to amend, modify or ignore the model regulation.
Stan Brown
<don.s...@gmail.com>:
But think about when you use them -- you don't tear off X square feet
of paper towel, you tear off one (or two). To me it makes sense to
compute unit price per towel because that's price per use.
Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Doug Miller
>
>Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
>but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
>near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
>new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
>
Bert Hyman
news:g3v60...@news1.newsguy.com:
> So the question is: what are the units on the package itself?
Not that I spend a lot of time examining packages of paper towels, the
ones I remember have both the number of sheets and the number of
square feet of product.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
news:MPG.22cd40535...@news.individual.net:
> Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:49:58 -0700 (PDT) from the zak
><don.s...@gmail.com>:
>> Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
>> towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
>> instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
>> It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
>> from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
>> to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>
> But think about when you use them -- you don't tear off X square
> feet of paper towel, you tear off one (or two).
You tear off as much as you think you'll need. If the sheets are
small, you'll tear off more.
Evelyn C. Leeper
> Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:49:58 -0700 (PDT) from the zak
> <don.s...@gmail.com>:
>> Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
>> towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
>> instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
>> It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
>> from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
>> to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>
> But think about when you use them -- you don't tear off X square feet
> of paper towel, you tear off one (or two). To me it makes sense to
> compute unit price per towel because that's price per use.
>
> Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
> but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
> near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
> new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
Use cloth when you can, but paper when you can't.
For example, cloth to clean up paint or motor oil drips is probably not
a reasonable use of cloth. Paper to dry your hands is not a good use of
paper.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
A great many people think they are thinking when they are
only rearranging their prejudices. -William James
George Grapman
> Stan Brown wrote:
>> Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:49:58 -0700 (PDT) from the zak
>> <don.s...@gmail.com>:
>>> Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
>>> towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
>>> instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
>>> It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
>>> from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
>>> to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>>
>> But think about when you use them -- you don't tear off X square feet
>> of paper towel, you tear off one (or two). To me it makes sense to
>> compute unit price per towel because that's price per use.
>>
>> Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
>> but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
>> near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
>> new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
>
> Use cloth when you can, but paper when you can't.
>
> For example, cloth to clean up paint or motor oil drips is probably not
> a reasonable use of cloth. Paper to dry your hands is not a good use of
> paper.
>
I noticed recently that the local Cala/Bell Markets which are owned by
Kroger's have some paper towels priced by square feet and others by
number of sheets.
hchi...@hotmail.com
Unit pricing is a joke anyway. I regularly see stores post a unit
price in ounces for one brand of product and pound for a different
brand. If they could unit price in standard aardvark meal portions, I
suspect they would do that as well, all in the interest of
obfuscation.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:6TO8k.3$vn...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
snip
> I noticed recently that the local Cala/Bell Markets which are owned by
> Kroger's have some paper towels priced by square feet and others by number
> of sheets.
strictly for confusion. i usually only use 1 sheet of paper towel at a
time, so i price it by the sheet. i use tp by the length, so i price it by
the ft2.
----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin
www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny
heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4863b0b8$0$11639$607e...@cv.net...
snip
> For example, cloth to clean up paint or motor oil drips is probably not a
> reasonable use of cloth. Paper to dry your hands is not a good use of
> paper.
the powers that be tell us that it's more sanitary. ditto for sponges.
we need to use paper towels for
all cleanup and drying. NOT.
--
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
> but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
> near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
> new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
High-quality cloth diapers do an excellent job. We just use
hotel-quality hand towels.
WDS
We still use the cloth diapers from when my daughter was a baby almost
two decades ago as rags. They work great!
Rod Speed
> the zak <don.s...@gmail.com> wrote
> Not if you have a pocket calculator.
Or any decent cellphone.
Seerialmom
> In message
> <c75904f4-f182-445f-abdf-1234a304b...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
I use my iPod Touch as a calculator. Not frugal...but it does the job.
Seerialmom
> Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
> >> towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
> >> instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
> >> It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
> >> from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
> >> to do in the aisle of the Target store.
> > Not if you have a pocket calculator.
>
> Or any decent cellphone.
My cell phone (Motorola V551) must not be decent...it doesn't have a
calculator :(
Seerialmom
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:49:58 -0700 (PDT), the zak
>
All the more reason EVERYONE should pass basic math, right? I've seen
the same thing in stores...they can't put one over on me...I know how
to multiply and divide :D
Rod Speed
>> Or any decent cellphone.
Yep, very indecent indeed.
> it doesn't have a calculator :(
Typical Motorola steaming turd disguised as a cellphone |-)
Rod Speed
> hchick...@hotmail.com wrote
>> the zak <don.sak...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
>>> towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
>>> instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
>>> It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
>>> from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
>>> to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>> Unit pricing is a joke anyway. I regularly see stores post a unit
>> price in ounces for one brand of product and pound for a different
>> brand. If they could unit price in standard aardvark meal portions, I
>> suspect they would do that as well, all in the interest of obfuscation.
> All the more reason EVERYONE should pass basic math, right?
Wrong, thats why god invented calculators.
> I've seen the same thing in stores...they can't put one over on me...
> I know how to multiply and divide :D
You've multiplied too much already, seerially.
Time for some retrospective abortions/division.
Don Klipstein
zak wrote:
My experience at the supermarkets where I usually shop is that they also
give unit prices being price per 100 sheets.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Seerialmom
> Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote
But at least I can take pictures and use the bluetooth on it to move
onto a PC :)
Rod Speed
>>>> Or any decent cellphone.
>> Yep, very indecent indeed.
And if you had chosen it more carefully, you wouldnt need a separate ipod.
And you'd get much better pictures with a better cellphone too.
Jack Bauer
I have been in several different stores trying to figure out the unit
pricing on bottled water. They will have all different sizes and
brands, but in the end they are all just bottles containing water,
right? But the unit pricing is by the each, liter, ounce, you name it!
Whatever units they can come up with to make it all more confusing.
You can't compare.
And the WHOLE POINT of unit pricing, as they told us back in the 70's,
is that it SHOULD NOT take a college grad with a slide rule or
calculator to figure this stuff out. You should be able to look at all
the similar products and quickly figure out which is cheapest based on
the unit pricing shown on the labels.
But you can't. So who do we contact to enforce the unit pricing laws?
Jack Bauer
I bet it does, just very hard to find and use. Even my cheapo Nokia $30
cell phone has a calculator. Of course, no camera or bluetooth.
Rod Speed
> Seerialmom wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> the zak <don.sak...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
>>>>> towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
>>>>> instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
>>>>> It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
>>>>> from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
>>>>> to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>>>> Not if you have a pocket calculator.
>>> Or any decent cellphone.
>> My cell phone (Motorola V551) must not be decent...it doesn't have a calculator :(
> I bet it does, just very hard to find and use.
He's right, P83 in the manual, Office Tools, Calculator.
the zak
http://www.target.com/gp/help/display-contact-us-form.html?displayLink=tsm
http://www.target.com/
gp/help/display-contact-us-form.html?displayLink=tsm
the zak
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Our+Agencies+and+Divisions&L3=Division+of+Standards&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=dos_enforce&csid=Eoca
http://www.mass.gov/
?pageID=ocaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Our+Agencies+and
+Divisions&L3=Division+of
+Standards&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=dos_enforce&csid=Eoca
clams_casino
> They will have all different sizes and brands, but in the end they are
> all just bottles containing water, right?
You obviously have not tasted some of the off brands at Walmart.
I find the 24 packs of 1/2 L Poland Springs to be the best value /
quality that frequently go on sale here for $3.99.
While we don't drink them at home, they are very convenient to have in
the car when traveling.
Tim Smith
On average, that is probably actually more accurate a predictor of how
much a roll really costs, since most people will consume paper towels by
the sheet, not by area.
For example, given a roll X with sheets of a given size (let's call that
size 1), and a roll Y, with sheets 10% bigger (so, size 1.1), all those
spills small enough to clean up with one X sheet would take one Y sheet,
so the net result would be that the extra 10% on the Y sheets would be
completely wasted on those spills.
Here's a table:
Spill Size # X sheets # Y sheets
---------- ---------- ----------
( 0, 1 ] 1 1
( 1, 1.1 ] 2 1
( 1.1, 2 ] 2 2
( 2, 2.2 ] 3 2
( 2.2, 3 ] 3 3
( 3, 3.3 ] 4 3
...
I think most spills will be in the ( 0, 1 ] range, using 1 sheet of
either, where the extra 10% on the Y sheets is completely wasted on
those consumers who don't carefully tear off the dry portions after
using a towel and save those for small later spills.
--
--Tim Smith
val189
> Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
> towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
> instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
> It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
> from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
> to do in the aisle of the Target store.
Yeah, it's a math nightmare and not worth the time to do any real
figuring. Paper goods are still a relatively cheap product and small
part of total living expenses, so I just buy according to quality I
desire.
Instead of grabbing a paper towel every other spill etc, I grab a
cheap, ( dozen for 4 bucks ) washcloth which can go in the wash and it
costs nada.
sarge137
> the zak wrote:
> > Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
> > towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
> > instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
> > It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
> > from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
> > to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>
> I have been in several different stores trying to figure out the unit
> pricing on bottled water. They will have all different sizes and
> brands, but in the end they are all just bottles containing water,
> right? But the unit pricing is by the each, liter, ounce, you name it!
> Whatever units they can come up with to make it all more confusing.
> You can't compare.
Interesting. We shop at two different stores on a regular basis. A
Kroger chain store and a military commissary. In both cases every
beverage (water, soft drinks, fruit juice, etc) they sell is unit
priced per ounce, regardless of the packaging or volume of the
package. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a unit price shelf
label that wasn't expressed per pound or ounce so long as the label on
the product is expressed in those terms (which is pretty much
everything on their shelves). Even the OTC drugs they sell are unit
labeled per dose.
I guess I don't understand the compulsion to buy what's cheapest visa-
a-vis what's best (a matter of personal opinion). In most cases you'd
have to buy in pretty large quantities for the difference to matter
much. For example: We eat canned albacore tuna packed in water. Our
regular grocery store carries three national brands. We've tried all
of them, and I personally see no difference, but my wife has a
preference which happens to be the most expensive. The price per
ounce between the cheapest and most expensive is about 15 percent.
Not enough to matter given the volume of the stuff we buy. She buys
what she likes.
> And the WHOLE POINT of unit pricing, as they told us back in the 70's,
> is that it SHOULD NOT take a college grad with a slide rule or
> calculator to figure this stuff out. You should be able to look at all
> the similar products and quickly figure out which is cheapest based on
> the unit pricing shown on the labels.
Absolutely right! But, another example of a feel good law with no
real intention of enforcement. Take a look at some of the discussions
of the National Do Not Call Registry you can find in the groups.
> But you can't. So who do we contact to enforce the unit pricing laws?
Your best bet would be to contact the Consumers Affairs Division of
your state Attorney General's Office. But, unless they've got an axe
to grind with the business for other reasons don't expect much
response
GregS
>On Jun 27, 1:02=A0am, Jack Bauer <j...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> the zak wrote:
>> > Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
>> > towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
>> > instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
>> > It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
>> > from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
>> > to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>>
>> I have been in several different stores trying to figure out the unit
>> brands, but in the end they are all just bottles containing water,
>> =A0 Whatever units they can come up with to make it all more confusing.
>> You can't compare.
>
>Interesting. We shop at two different stores on a regular basis. A
>Kroger chain store and a military commissary. In both cases every
>beverage (water, soft drinks, fruit juice, etc) they sell is unit
>priced per ounce, regardless of the packaging or volume of the
>package. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a unit price shelf
>label that wasn't expressed per pound or ounce so long as the label on
>the product is expressed in those terms (which is pretty much
>everything on their shelves). Even the OTC drugs they sell are unit
>labeled per dose.
>
>I guess I don't understand the compulsion to buy what's cheapest visa-
>a-vis what's best (a matter of personal opinion). In most cases you'd
>have to buy in pretty large quantities for the difference to matter
>much. For example: We eat canned albacore tuna packed in water. Our
>regular grocery store carries three national brands. We've tried all
>of them, and I personally see no difference, but my wife has a
>preference which happens to be the most expensive. The price per
>ounce between the cheapest and most expensive is about 15 percent.
>Not enough to matter given the volume of the stuff we buy. She buys
>what she likes.
>
>> And the WHOLE POINT of unit pricing, as they told us back in the 70's,
>> is that it SHOULD NOT take a college grad with a slide rule or
>> the similar products and quickly figure out which is cheapest based on
>> the unit pricing shown on the labels.
>
>Absolutely right! But, another example of a feel good law with no
>real intention of enforcement. Take a look at some of the discussions
>of the National Do Not Call Registry you can find in the groups.
>
>
>Your best bet would be to contact the Consumers Affairs Division of
>your state Attorney General's Office. But, unless they've got an axe
>to grind with the business for other reasons don't expect much
>response
>
Unit price. Seems I forgot all about that system.
Kroger food ? I grew up with them but they have been long gone
for many years here.
I often buy the cheaper Giant Eagle brands, which I find in most
cases are better than the other brands, and cheaper. Got the gas
perks also.
greg
sarge137
Yeah the Kroger brand is gone from many markets. But, Kroger, Inc. is
alive and well. They operate almost 3,000 supermarkets between the
midwest and west coast. And many times that many convenience stores,
delis and bakeries. Check Wikipedia, or the Kroger corporate web
site. You may actually have a Kroger store in your area that goes by
a different name.
> I often buy the cheaper Giant Eagle brands, which I find in most
> cases are better than the other brands, and cheaper. Got the gas
> perks also.
I agree. I buy many store brand items. But it's because I think
they're superior, not because they're cheaper - though they almost
always are. We also get the gas discount - 3 cents per gallon just
for scanning their shopper's card, and 10 cents per gallon if you've
bought at least $100 worth of groceries on that card in the past
month. And as a bonus their "street price" for gas is the lowest in
the area. The down side of that is that the lines at their pumps are
sometimes so long that I'm not willing to wait 20 minutes or more to
save 30 cents to a dollar on a ten gallon fill up.
Seerialmom
Depends on where you live. It could be the consumer protection
department or the weights and measures people. I agree that if
they're going to say that BW brand A is .05¢ an oz then BW brand B
right next to it should not say .69¢ per ea.
Don Klipstein
sarge137 wrote in part:
>On Jun 27, 1:02 am, Jack Bauer <j...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> the zak wrote:
>> > Target unit pricing shelf labels for paper goods like paper
>> > towels and toilet tissue list the unit price per 100 sheets
>> > instead of per 100 square feet as do other stores.
>> > It's inaccurate. Sheet sizes vary. Converting unit pricing
>> > from per 100 sheets to per 100 square feet is difficult
>> > to do in the aisle of the Target store.
>>
>> I have been in several different stores trying to figure out the unit
>> pricing on bottled water. They will have all different sizes and
>> brands, but in the end they are all just bottles containing water,
>> right? But the unit pricing is by the each, liter, ounce, you name it!
>> Whatever units they can come up with to make it all more confusing.
>> You can't compare.
>
>Interesting. We shop at two different stores on a regular basis. A
>Kroger chain store and a military commissary. In both cases every
>beverage (water, soft drinks, fruit juice, etc) they sell is unit
>priced per ounce, regardless of the packaging or volume of the
>package. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a unit price shelf
>label that wasn't expressed per pound or ounce so long as the label on
>the product is expressed in those terms (which is pretty much
>everything on their shelves).
I have seen the supermarket nearest my day job have all the unit prices
for all sizes and versions of one brand of dish detergent with unit
pricing per ounce, and all unit prices for all sizes and versions of
another brand unit priced per quart.
I buy my dish detergent elsewhere. I don't even know if that
supermarket changed to all dish detergent unit prices being on the same
unit within the past 5-6 years or not. However, several hundred people
living within 3 blocks of this place are elderly or disbled or both along
with not having cars, and I wonder what percentage of such low mobility
people can multiply or divide by 32 in their heads.
Many college students who live within walking distance of that
supermarket 8-9 months a year also don't have cars, and I suspect many of
those also can't multiply or divide by 32 in their heads.
(Thankfully I can well enough very proficiently and quickly
multiply/divide in my head all numbers that are "pretty much the powers
of the 6th root of 2 and 20th root of 10" - "the 1/6 octave numbers" -
which include pi and the square root of 2.)
This sort of BS is one of the reasons why people demand politicians
passing laws telling business operators how to run their businesses. If
businesses (more like the notably verminous subset thereof; there are
plenty of upright and benevolent businesses) did better at playing fair
and doing the right thing, then some lawyers would have to find other
lines of work and the news media would need to become a little less like
vermin than they are now in order to justify their (now very necessary)
existence on serving public good.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
sarge137
>
> This sort of BS is one of the reasons why people demand politicians
> passing laws telling business operators how to run their businesses. If
> businesses (more like the notably verminous subset thereof; there are
> plenty of upright and benevolent businesses) did better at playing fair
> and doing the right thing, then some lawyers would have to find other
> lines of work and the news media would need to become a little less like
> vermin than they are now in order to justify their (now very necessary)
> existence on serving public good.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Absolutely right, Don. I'm the kind of guy who, if I saw an apparent
difference in the size and/or price to actually look at the unit price
label, would have the manager of that store standing in front of that
product and ask him/her just exactly how I'm supposed to to do a
proper price comparison. I'd also ask if they wanted to keep my
business, and what the consumer reporter at the local TV station would
think of the practice. Somebody's gotta do it. :-)
Regards,
Sarge
Don Klipstein
I have a Nokia phone, model that I can't remember, with a calculator.
I find that cellphone calculator worse than not having one!
It appeaers to me that there shoule be major consumer demand for
cellphones to have really easy calculator functions!
I am not one of the consumers shopping for cellphones much on that
basis, since I have a fairly good calculator that I built on my own within
my cranium! I am the proud owner of the Don Klipstein "Brainiac"
calculator, good enough for me to design gapped magnetic electronic
components and tuned port loudspeaker cabinets in my head.
However, many other people would do well to have something that they
normally carry all the time serving well as a quick and proficient
calculator. It appears to me that watches that are made to also be
calculators are too slow to use due to buttons/keys that are very small
and closely spaced.
If my "Brainiac" did not work so well, I would carry along a
true and decent calculator into supermarkets just as surely as I now do
most of my grocery hauling by bicycle to tell OPEC and Nigeria and Exxon
that I don't have to spend $4.15 per gallon to haul groceries home. I
just wish that more of my fellow Americans would spend a couple bucks to
get calculators, so that they and their fellow American consumers can
conspire to vote against this supermarket BS with their wallets and
pocketbooks!
If Americans when faced with such lowly BS can fight it without
resorting to government and lawyers, I think it's so much better!
America has been a country of "freedom loving outlaws"! I appears to me
that unit pricing BS/"horse puckey"/"cow-cookies" are better to be
fought by Americans to the extent that they can turn the tide against
BS-ing shopkeepers without needing government assistance to do so any more
than Americans needed Prohibition or the 55 MPH national speed limit!
Not that I think that BS-ing shopkeepers do not deserve heavy-handed
government regulation!
It's just that I find that an aware and able populace that America
*should have* is more effective than most of the elected officials that
all-too-many Americans are all-too-willing to sell their votes to; bought
by the all-too-many American voters who want pork, cutting of pork except
for that in their district, or get sold on tax cuts without matching
spending cuts on basis of being told something more optimistic than having
to pay it later *plus interest*.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
sarge137 wrote:
More power to you!
Next time I see BS as blatent as the more blatant that I have seen, I
will see if the consumer reporters at any of my local news stations are
interested!
Sadly, all too many businesses now have "no photography" rules.
Thankfully, I don't notice supermarkets stooping so low yet. I just wish
that our politicians were not elected so much on basis campaign budgets
funded by them selling themselves to those buying them.
But now that many cellphones have cameras and photo transmission means
and there are also many othervery miniature cameras available, I suspect
that if Aericans cared enough to be *capable* freedom loving outlaws that
they were back in Phobition days, we *should be able to* fight against
BS marketing practices even if our elected officials are not on our side,
and even where the news media is too badly fluff supposedly being on our
side while actually avoiding doing so (in order to keep getting ad revenue
from those that deserve to be exposed).
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Lou
"sarge137" <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a1919ffc-ab39-49d0...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting. We shop at two different stores on a regular basis. A
> Kroger chain store and a military commissary. In both cases every
> beverage (water, soft drinks, fruit juice, etc) they sell is unit
> priced per ounce, regardless of the packaging or volume of the
> package. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a unit price shelf
> label that wasn't expressed per pound or ounce so long as the label on
> the product is expressed in those terms (which is pretty much
> everything on their shelves). Even the OTC drugs they sell are unit
> labeled per dose.
I remember years ago, standing in the supermarket aisle, trying to decide on
a container of furniture polish. At the time, we used Pledge, there was no
question about what brand I was going to buy. But which size? There was an
assortment of sizes that were aerosol cans, and the unit price was given per
ounce - easy enough to figure out which size was the most economical. But
there was also another set of offerings that were not pressurized
containers - they had a pump sprayer, like what you see on a Windex bottle.
The unit price for the pump sprayer was given in pounds. Again, easy enough
to figure out what was the most economical pump sprayer. But impossible to
tell if the pressurized can or the pump spray was the most better buy. Up
to that point, I had thought that the point of unit pricing was to make that
comparison possible - after all, what I was buying was furniture polish, and
it was the same product in each container.
> I guess I don't understand the compulsion to buy what's cheapest visa-
> a-vis what's best (a matter of personal opinion). In most cases you'd
> have to buy in pretty large quantities for the difference to matter
> much. For example: We eat canned albacore tuna packed in water. Our
> regular grocery store carries three national brands. We've tried all
> of them, and I personally see no difference, but my wife has a
> preference which happens to be the most expensive. The price per
> ounce between the cheapest and most expensive is about 15 percent.
> Not enough to matter given the volume of the stuff we buy. She buys
> what she likes.
True. I'll buy what I like - what I personally consider "best". But I
don't see any reason to pay more for it than I have to. For instance, we
use Minute Maid frozen orange juice concentrate - tried all the other brands
available locally, and that's what we like the best. But this stuff comes
in a variety of sizes, small cans and medium cans and large cans at least.
One week, the small can might be the best buy, another week it might be the
large can. I'll buy whichever size is the best buy that week. If your wife
likes a certain brand of canned tuna, there's nothing wrong with buying that
brand - it's your money after all. But if one size costs 10% more than
another size of the preferred brand, why not get the more economical size?
Maybe it doesn't make much difference, but it doesn't take any effort
either.
Tim Smith
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> Sadly, all too many businesses now have "no photography" rules.
> Thankfully, I don't notice supermarkets stooping so low yet. I just wish
> that our politicians were not elected so much on basis campaign budgets
> funded by them selling themselves to those buying them.
> But now that many cellphones have cameras and photo transmission means
> and there are also many othervery miniature cameras available, I suspect
> that if Aericans cared enough to be *capable* freedom loving outlaws that
> they were back in Phobition days, we *should be able to* fight against
> BS marketing practices even if our elected officials are not on our side,
> and even where the news media is too badly fluff supposedly being on our
> side while actually avoiding doing so (in order to keep getting ad revenue
> from those that deserve to be exposed).
I don't think a store would dare try to ban cellphones, so the hell with
"no photography" rules.
Consider this situation. You want to by an item. You want to buy it
locally, because you want it *now*. But you have no particular
preference going in as to brand, or where you want to buy it. So, you
want to do a little research, then go buy one.
Here's one approach. Go the websites of your local retailers (Target,
Sears, Walmart, Bestbuy, and so on), and find their offerings. Google
some of the more interesting ones, then see what store has the best
price, and go buy it. Oops...the store is out of stock of that
model...now what has that second choice again...?
OK, approach #2. While at the "retailer website" stage, check to see
which models are in stock at your local store, so you can limit yourself
to them. Problem: some stores don't show local stock. Problem: even if
the website lets you look up stock information, they may have vastly
more items available online than your local store stocks, so it can be
very time consuming to find them.
Finally, the approach I'm using next time. Go to each store. Find the
items they have in stock. Take photos. Go home, load photos onto
computer, and view them, to find the makes, model numbers, and prices.
Research those online specifically, not wasting my time with all the
ones the store does NOT have in stock. Pick one, and go buy it.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
<a1919ffc-ab39-49d0...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
sarge137 <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> real intention of enforcement. Take a look at some of the discussions
> of the National Do Not Call Registry you can find in the groups.
The DNC registry seems to have worked pretty well for me. When it went
into effect, the number of sales calls I received went WAY down. Now
the only unsolicited calls I receive are:
1. Politicians.
2. Charities.
3. DirectTV. I was a subscriber. I was happy with their service, but
switched to Comcast because I was switching from DSL to cable for
internet (I was NOT happy with Sprint, my DSL provider--about once every
3 months, the latency to the gateway would jump to 3000 ms, and it would
take several days to get them to admit it was their problem and fix it)
(And yes, I could prove it was their problem). And since the only
reason I had Sprint for phone service was to get their DSL, I switched
that to Comcast, too. By switching TV, I could get a good deal on the
bundle, and I was curious to try HDTV (my view of the DirectTV HDTV
satellite was blocked). So, they are allowed to try to call me--and
they might even succeed in getting me back, as Comcast's DVR is really
pissing me off now! :-)
4. Wrong numbers. Mostly collection agencies looking for people who had
my number long before me, or people who had my address long before me.
So I'd have to say DNC has been very successful.
--
--Tim Smith
clams_casino
>
>
>I don't think a store would dare try to ban cellphones
>
I overheard a caller yesterday complaining that the background music was
too loud, he could hardly hear his caller.
Stan Brown
> In article <MPG.22cd40535...@news.individual.net>, Stan
> Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
> >but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
> >near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
> >new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
> >
> Microfiber cloths work far better than standard terrycloth towels.
I've never heard of microfiber cloths. Are they a department-store
item (e.g. Target), or are we talking specialty stores (B&M and
Internet)?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Stan Brown
> the_sta...@fastmail.fm (Stan Brown) wrote in
> news:MPG.22cd40535...@news.individual.net:
> > But think about when you use them -- you don't tear off X square
> > feet of paper towel, you tear off one (or two).
>
> You tear off as much as you think you'll need. If the sheets are
> small, you'll tear off more.
Well, of course you will if the sheets are two inches wide. But I
doubt very much that most people would notice a variation of 10%,
maybe even 20%.
Stan Brown
> And the WHOLE POINT of unit pricing, as they told us back in the 70's,
> is that it SHOULD NOT take a college grad with a slide rule or
> calculator to figure this stuff out.
If you HAD a slide rule, would it help?
Stan Brown
> Besides if frugality is your main concern, with water, your best bet is
> to drink tap water and filter it if necessary. The cost of Brita water
> filter (and a few filters) is a lot cheaper then bottled water on a per
> gallon basis.
Precisely! Get a reusable water bottle (about $1 at Wal-mart) and
fill it with tap water or filtered water if necessary. It'a much
cheaper, it's better for the environment, and it reduces our
dependence on foreign oil as well as our garbage problem.
(I don't remember the figures, but the billions of one-use plastic
water bottles take a horrendous amount of oil to manufacture. Sure,
they're recyclable in principle, but many people don't bother so they
end up in landfills or by the side of the road. And even the recycled
ones aren't recycled into plastic water bottles.)
Stan Brown
<d...@manx.misty.com>:
> I have a Nokia phone, model that I can't remember, with a calculator.
> I find that cellphone calculator worse than not having one!
How can it be *worse* than no calculator? "Not much better than" I
could understand, but "worse"????
Stan Brown
potato.com>:
> Go the websites of your local retailers (Target, Sears, Walmart,
> store has the best price, and go buy it.
That's nice in theory, not in practice.
Best Buy in particular has different prices on its Web site than in
its stores -- recently in the news there was a consent decree
requiring them to disclose that to consumers in the stores.(*)
I used to check Walmart's site, but again I found that the offerings
on the Web site didn't match what was in the store. I suspect many
chains are the same.
(*) The kiosks in the stores were originally identified as showing
Best Buy's Web site so consumers could check Web prices pursuant to
Best Buy's price-match policy. In fact they showed a look-alike site
that showed the store prices, which were often higher than the Web
prices. The consent decree didn't require store prices and Web prices
to match, just for Best Buy to post signs(**) to the effect that the
kiosks weren't showing the actual bestbuy.com prices.
(**) I can't remember whether it was physical paper signs, or a
notice on screen.
Stan Brown
> There was an assortment of sizes that were aerosol cans, and the
> sprayer was given in pounds. Again, easy enough to figure out what
> was the most economical pump sprayer. But impossible to tell if the
> pressurized can or the pump spray was the most better buy.
Well, if you know the best pump sprayer's unit price and the best
aerosol's unit price, multiply the latter by 16 and compare to the
former to find which is "most better". While I agree with you that it
would be better if both were in ounces, it's hardly "impossible" to
compare them, just less convenient.
> Up to that point, I had thought that the point of unit pricing was
> to make that comparison possible - after all, what I was buying was
> furniture polish, and it was the same product in each container.
They may or may not have been the same product. Something formulated
to be dispensed through a pump may have different viscosity from
something formulated for an aerosol spray.
Stan Brown
potato.com>:
> The DNC registry seems to have worked pretty well for me. ... Now
> 3. DirectTV. I was a subscriber. ... So, they are allowed to try to call me
They are allowed to call, *unless* you tell them not to. If you have
a past business relationship with a company, the DNC doesn't apply to
them by default, but it does if you tell them not to call.
source: Q&A 31 at
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm
"If you make a specific request to that company not to call you,
however, then the company may not call you, even if you have an
established business relationship with that company."
Don Klipstein
>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:16:10 +0000 (UTC) from Don Klipstein
><d...@manx.misty.com>:
>> I have a Nokia phone, model that I can't remember, with a calculator.
>> I find that cellphone calculator worse than not having one!
>
>How can it be *worse* than no calculator? "Not much better than" I
>could understand, but "worse"????
Maybe I need to clarify that a little. The *$#@*(&^ cellphyone
calculator I find to be worse than no calculator at all if I actually use
it. So I don't.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
max
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
you sound like you're ready to step up to the iPhone 3G!
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
max
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:39:48 GMT from Lou <lpo...@verizon.net>:
> > There was an assortment of sizes that were aerosol cans, and the
> > unit price was given per ounce. ... The unit price for the pump
> > sprayer was given in pounds. Again, easy enough to figure out what
> > was the most economical pump sprayer. But impossible to tell if the
> > pressurized can or the pump spray was the most better buy.
>
> Well, if you know the best pump sprayer's unit price and the best
> aerosol's unit price, multiply the latter by 16 and compare to the
> former to find which is "most better". While I agree with you that it
> would be better if both were in ounces, it's hardly "impossible" to
> compare them, just less convenient.
Now try doing that and crossing the english/metric divide _and_ cross
the weight/volume dimension at the SAME TIME. Another thing you'll
notice is the wildly varying amounts -- we just took a look at the first
three boxes of cereal we could find. 17, 18, 19 oz. respectively --
no common denominator.
Or, my favorite, take something that is priced in a two container
bundle, then compare that to the same exact branded product in slightly
different sized containers, bundled in a three pack. One is per liter
(but the containers are labled in fractional liters) and the other is
per "each", "each being the bundle price.
So I'm going to have to disaree. I'm passingly good with arithmetic, i
use it at work a great deal, and do a fair amount in my head. I almost
certainly have a great deal more day-to-day experience and practice with
applying arithmetic than most people, and yet, i find myself being
bewildered and confounded with unit pricing, especially when trying to
hold three or four mutually hostile unit pricing ploys in my head at
once for a single, simple product choice.
If it's too hard for me, it's too hard for a great many of people.
So I carry an HP reverse polish calculator ... when i remember.
Unit pricing as been perverted into a bald-faced contemptuous
obfuscation and would benefit from a pointed remediation. This is a
sentiment i feel often at the grocery store, and not simply this week as
a result of this thread. My long-suffering better half will gladly
attest to this fact.
.max
clams_casino
>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:58:20 GMT from Doug Miller <spam...@milmac.com>:
>
>
>>In article <MPG.22cd40535...@news.individual.net>, Stan
>>Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
>>>but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
>>>near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
>>>new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Microfiber cloths work far better than standard terrycloth towels.
>>
>>
>
>I've never heard of microfiber cloths. Are they a department-store
>item (e.g. Target), or are we talking specialty stores (B&M and
>Internet)?
>
>
>
Microfibers are typically synthetic fibers which are typically
hydrophobic (do not absorb water).
To my knowledge, cotton (best for absorbing water) is not available as a
"microfiber".
clams_casino
>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:24:58 -0400 from Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>>Besides if frugality is your main concern, with water, your best bet is
>>to drink tap water and filter it if necessary. The cost of Brita water
>>filter (and a few filters) is a lot cheaper then bottled water on a per
>>gallon basis.
>>
>>
>
>Precisely! Get a reusable water bottle (about $1 at Wal-mart) and
>fill it with tap water or filtered water if necessary. It'a much
>cheaper, it's better for the environment, and it reduces our
>dependence on foreign oil as well as our garbage problem.
>
>(I don't remember the figures, but the billions of one-use plastic
>water bottles take a horrendous amount of oil to manufacture.
>
US production is about 5B lbs/yr for bottles, but the paraxylene used in
its production is a minor byproduct in the cracking of oil. If all the
paraxylene was eliminated, there would be an insignificant reduction in
the US consumption of oil.
> Sure,
>they're recyclable in principle, but many people don't bother so they
>end up in landfills or by the side of the road. And even the recycled
>ones aren't recycled into plastic water bottles.)
>
>
Approximately 30% of all plastic bottles are recycled.
Most ends up in carpeting (some 35% of polyester carpeting in US is from
recycled polyester), some clothing and a few other items.
Drinking tap water is obviously the frugal approach and failing to
recycle bottles does lead to trash problems, but boycotting plastic
bottles would have no significant effect on US oil usage.
Rod Speed
Makes more sense to have one of those in the cellphone instead
so its always with you, and to have the list in the cellphone too.
> Unit pricing as been perverted into a bald-faced contemptuous obfuscation
Nope.
> and would benefit from a pointed remediation.
Sure.
> This is a sentiment i feel often at the grocery store, and not simply this week as
> a result of this thread. My long-suffering better half will gladly attest to this fact.
Just another mindless obsessive.
sarge137
> In article
> <a1919ffc-ab39-49d0-94cb-d1a9fb89b...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
Yes, Tim. My experience with the DNC is similar to yours.
The point I was making though, was that like the DNC, the unit pricing
requirement was created by the feds, who do absolutely nothing about
enforcement. They leave it to local authorities. Response varies
widely depending on where you live.
There are several cases in the FTC web site about serious sanctions
against major national corporations for violating the DNC. But these
were carefully hand picked cases with an almost absolute certainty of
success. Local businesses continue to violate the DNC openly and
blatantly across the country. Just try to get the regional FTC office
to do anything about it. How well your local authorities respond
depends on where you live - most can't or won't take action.
This unit pricing fiasco is the same. The FTC made the monster, but
won't do anything; and most local authorities don't care.
Without even getting into the right or wrong of laws like the DNC
Registry or unit pricing, if they're not going to ensure compliance
they ought to stop wasting time passing the laws.
Regards,
Sarge
clams_casino
Learned something today. While micro fibers are typically a mix of
very thin nylon and polyester fibers (both being hydrophobic), when
blended with cotton, the result can be a fabric which does absorb much
more than 100% cotton. The very small micro fibers separate the cotton
fibers, allowing for more active surface area & thus improved water
absorption. The hydrophobic polyetser / nylon portion helps with
cleaning by attracting dirt, etc, better than cotton (or larger fibers).
clams_casino
>>>
>>
>> Microfibers are typically synthetic fibers which are typically
>> hydrophobic (do not absorb water).
>>
>> To my knowledge, cotton (best for absorbing water) is not available
>> as a "microfiber".
>
>
>
> Learned something today. While micro fibers are typically a mix of
> very thin nylon and polyester fibers (both being hydrophobic), when
> blended with cotton, the result can be a fabric which does absorb
> much more than 100% cotton. The very small micro fibers separate the
> cotton fibers, allowing for more active surface area & thus improved
> water absorption. The hydrophobic polyetser / nylon portion helps
> with cleaning by attracting dirt, etc, better than cotton (or larger
> fibers).
Spoke way too soon (got hung up on some articles with a search for
cotton microfibers. When expanding the search, it became evident that
polyester /nylon / cotton blends are actually an exception (with some
claimed improvements), but the microfiber cloths found today are
primarily just (very fine denier) polyester and modified nylon blends
where the nylon portion is modified to be water absorbing. .
Interesting stuff. Quite amazing properties.
Lou
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.22d001326...@news.individual.net...
> Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:39:48 GMT from Lou <lpo...@verizon.net>:
> > There was an assortment of sizes that were aerosol cans, and the
> > unit price was given per ounce. ... The unit price for the pump
> > sprayer was given in pounds. Again, easy enough to figure out what
> > was the most economical pump sprayer. But impossible to tell if the
> > pressurized can or the pump spray was the most better buy.
>
> Well, if you know the best pump sprayer's unit price and the best
> aerosol's unit price, multiply the latter by 16 and compare to the
> former to find which is "most better". While I agree with you that it
> would be better if both were in ounces, it's hardly "impossible" to
> compare them, just less convenient.
As I said, this was years ago. Before there were any such things as cell
phones, let alone cell phones with calcualtors. There were hand-held
calculators, but they weren't the inexpensive giveaways they are today, they
cost a noticeable amount of money and I didn't have one. In principle
you're correct - it's possible to do the arithmetic by hand and come up with
the answer. What I meant, and what I thought was evident from the context,
was that it was impossible to tell from the unit price tags which was the
better buy.
By the way, I don't see the logic of multiplying by 16. The stuff priced
priced per ounce was in fluid ounces, a measure of volume, not one-sixteenth
of a pound, a measure of weight. If this stuff was plain water, you'd
multiply by 0.0652 to convert ounces to pounds. While I'm reasonably decent
at doing arithmetic in my head, that one's beyond my ability, not to mention
that I don't happen to know conversion factors like this, I have to look
them up. And of course, the conversion factor for any particular brand of
furniture polish is going to be different from the factor for water.
> > > Up to that point, I had thought that the point of unit pricing was
> > to make that comparison possible - after all, what I was buying was
> > furniture polish, and it was the same product in each container.
>
> They may or may not have been the same product. Something formulated
> to be dispensed through a pump may have different viscosity from
> something formulated for an aerosol spray.
Functionally, they were the same product - you sprayed it on your wood
furniture and wiped it with a soft cloth. I don't know the chemical
composition of any furniture polish, but presumably they're not all
identical - there's some difference in composition between Pledge and
Endust, and they're not the same product. But that's not an excuse to unit
price them in different units, and in fact all the aerosol cans of furniture
polish were unit priced in ounces.
Don Klipstein
>Stan Brown wrote:
>
>>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:24:58 -0400 from Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>>Besides if frugality is your main concern, with water, your best bet is
>>>to drink tap water and filter it if necessary. The cost of Brita water
>>>filter (and a few filters) is a lot cheaper then bottled water on a per
>>>gallon basis.
>>
>>Precisely! Get a reusable water bottle (about $1 at Wal-mart) and
>>fill it with tap water or filtered water if necessary. It'a much
>>cheaper, it's better for the environment, and it reduces our
>>dependence on foreign oil as well as our garbage problem.
>>
>>(I don't remember the figures, but the billions of one-use plastic
>>water bottles take a horrendous amount of oil to manufacture.
>
>US production is about 5B lbs/yr for bottles, but the paraxylene used in
>its production is a minor byproduct in the cracking of oil. If all the
>paraxylene was eliminated, there would be an insignificant reduction in
>the US consumption of oil.
5B pounds per year sounds to me like about .03% of worldwide consumption
of all fossil fuels.
Keep in mind that most plastic beverage bottles are made of polyethylene
terephthalate or polyethylene, and ethylene is obtained more from natural
gas - something else that USA imports and is experiencing
hyperinflationary price increases of.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
moonlight, ye chin wagged:
> I was caught rummaging through the dirty undwear and clothes in the
> washing baskets of friends while they were out of the house.
Rod Speed
thy state look ill, ye chucked:
/R/otund
/O/nion.
/D/ouble-jointed
/S/weetie who likes
/P/itiless
/E/ncounters with
/E/lks.
/D/olt.
clams_casino
>>>
>>>(I don't remember the figures, but the billions of one-use plastic
>>>water bottles take a horrendous amount of oil to manufacture.
>>>
>>>
>>US production is about 5B lbs/yr for bottles, but the paraxylene used in
>>its production is a minor byproduct in the cracking of oil. If all the
>>paraxylene was eliminated, there would be an insignificant reduction in
>>the US consumption of oil.
>>
>>
>
> 5B pounds per year sounds to me like about .03% of worldwide consumption
>of all fossil fuels.
> Keep in mind that most plastic beverage bottles are made of polyethylene
>terephthalate or polyethylene, and ethylene is obtained more from natural
>gas - something else that USA imports and is experiencing
>hyperinflationary price increases of.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>
5B pounds (assuming perhaps half is paraxylene from oil) with a 30%
recycled rate is perhaps 500k barrels of new oil / yr.
The US uses 21M barrels of oil / day.
With the average being less than 1 plastic bottle of water per person
per day in the US, it would be far more effective to simply eliminate an
average of a mile of driving per day.
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>>>>(I don't remember the figures, but the billions of one-use plastic
>>>>water bottles take a horrendous amount of oil to manufacture.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>US production is about 5B lbs/yr for bottles, but the paraxylene used in
>>>its production is a minor byproduct in the cracking of oil. If all the
>>>paraxylene was eliminated, there would be an insignificant reduction in
>>>the US consumption of oil.
>>
>> 5B pounds per year sounds to me like about .03% of worldwide consumption
>>of all fossil fuels.
>> Keep in mind that most plastic beverage bottles are made of polyethylene
>>terephthalate or polyethylene, and ethylene is obtained more from natural
>>gas - something else that USA imports and is experiencing
>>hyperinflationary price increases of.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>5B pounds (assuming perhaps half is paraxylene from oil) with a 30%
>recycled rate is perhaps 500k barrels of new oil / yr.
I get more like 5M.
5B times .7 times .5 divided by 42 (gallons in a barrel) divided by 8 (a
fairly typical density of crude petroleum in pounds per gallon) is a
little over 5M.
>The US uses 21M barrels of oil / day.
>
>With the average being less than 1 plastic bottle of water per person
>per day in the US, it would be far more effective to simply eliminate an
>average of a mile of driving per day.
Of course, it would be good if everyone could drive a mile a day less.
Most days I don't drive combustion-engine vehicles at all. I also buy
maybe 3 bottles of water a year and recycle them, and I recycle all of my
soda, milk and juice bottles.
Meanwhile, I think that 30% recycling rate is something to improve
bigtime on - not only for water bottles, but also for other beverage
bottles, and those plastic grocery bags.
It will also do good if we shop more for fuel efficiency when in the car
market, more for energy efficiency when in the market for refrigerators
and air conditioners, and replace incandescents with CFLs where they work
well. (All of the general lighting in my home is from CFLs.)
Meanwhile, how about the portion other than paraxylene? You are
assuming half of PET is paraxylene. The other whatever-the-portion-is
also comes from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Stan Brown
> On Jun 26, 2:22 pm, Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
> <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Someone else said "don't use paper, use cloth". I agree in principle,
> > > but in 40+ years I've never found a cloth towel that does anywhere
> > > near as good a job of drying as paper. I'm willing to try something
> > > new if it really works. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
> >
> > hotel-quality hand towels.
>
> We still use the cloth diapers from when my daughter was a baby almost
> two decades ago as rags. They work great!
Thanks! I wonder whether the cloth diapers available today are of
sufficient quality. One more thing to investigate!
Stan Brown
> In <MPG.22cffe9db...@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown wrote:
> >Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:16:10 +0000 (UTC) from Don Klipstein
> ><d...@manx.misty.com>:
> >> I have a Nokia phone, model that I can't remember, with a calculator.
> >> I find that cellphone calculator worse than not having one!
> >
> >How can it be *worse* than no calculator? "Not much better than" I
> >could understand, but "worse"????
>
> Maybe I need to clarify that a little. The *$#@*(&^ cellphyone
> calculator I find to be worse than no calculator at all if I actually use
> it. So I don't.
You still haven't said how a poor calculator is worse than no
calculator. Unless it gives wrong answers, which I assume it doesn't,
how could it be worse?
Stan Brown
> By the way, I don't see the logic of multiplying by 16. The stuff
> priced priced per ounce was in fluid ounces, a measure of volume,
> not one-sixteenth of a pound, a measure of weight.
Now that you have corrected the information you gave earlier, I agree
with you.
But before you said "ounces", not "fluid ounces", and outside of the
precious-metals markey there are 16 ounces in a pound.
clams_casino
>In article <DkL9k.6574$i55....@newsfe22.lga>, clams_casino wrote:
>
>
>>Don Klipstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>(I don't remember the figures, but the billions of one-use plastic
>>>>>water bottles take a horrendous amount of oil to manufacture.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>US production is about 5B lbs/yr for bottles, but the paraxylene used in
>>>>its production is a minor byproduct in the cracking of oil. If all the
>>>>paraxylene was eliminated, there would be an insignificant reduction in
>>>>the US consumption of oil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 5B pounds per year sounds to me like about .03% of worldwide consumption
>>>of all fossil fuels.
>>> Keep in mind that most plastic beverage bottles are made of polyethylene
>>>terephthalate or polyethylene, and ethylene is obtained more from natural
>>>gas - something else that USA imports and is experiencing
>>>hyperinflationary price increases of.
>>>
>>>- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>>>
>>>
>>5B pounds (assuming perhaps half is paraxylene from oil) with a 30%
>>recycled rate is perhaps 500k barrels of new oil / yr.
>>
>>
>
> I get more like 5M.
>
> 5B times .7 times .5 divided by 42 (gallons in a barrel) divided by 8 (a
>fairly typical density of crude petroleum in pounds per gallon) is a
>little over 5M.
>
>
>
You are correct - too many decimal places to keep up with.
>>The US uses 21M barrels of oil / day.
>>
>>With the average being less than 1 plastic bottle of water per person
>>per day in the US, it would be far more effective to simply eliminate an
>>average of a mile of driving per day.
>>
>>
>
> Of course, it would be good if everyone could drive a mile a day less.
>Most days I don't drive combustion-engine vehicles at all. I also buy
>maybe 3 bottles of water a year and recycle them, and I recycle all of my
>soda, milk and juice bottles.
>
>
At about 12 gms/bottle and a gallon of gas at 6 lbs (2724 gms), each
gallon of gas is about 227 bottles.
The average plastic bottle usage is reported to be about 1/person/day
(365/yr). To offset the weight of bottles, one actually needs to save
1.6 gallons of gas/yr or about 1 mile each 11 days. With a 30% recycle
rate, that becomes closer to about 3/4 mile / week.
> Meanwhile, I think that 30% recycling rate is something to improve
>bigtime on - not only for water bottles, but also for other beverage
>bottles, and those plastic grocery bags.
>
>
Fully agree, but that will depend entirely on local recycling programs.
We recycle most all our plastic bottles due to the ease of local
curbside recycling.
> It will also do good if we shop more for fuel efficiency when in the car
>market, more for energy efficiency when in the market for refrigerators
>and air conditioners, and replace incandescents with CFLs where they work
>well. (All of the general lighting in my home is from CFLs.)
>
> Meanwhile, how about the portion other than paraxylene? You are
>assuming half of PET is paraxylene. The other whatever-the-portion-is
>also comes from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas.
>
>
>
The other half is natural gas - a much more abundant US supply is
available vs. oil. Notice that natural gas has not increased anywhere
near what oil has. Whereas oil supplies have been essentially stagnate,
natural gas supplies have significantly increased in recent years.
OK - reducing driving about 6 miles/ month will easily offset any gas /
oil required for polyester bottles.
IMO, the use of any oil beyond chemicals is an abusive use of oil. I'd
like to see at least another $1-2 tax on gasoline (offsetting other
taxes, possible FICA) to drive down the wasteful abuse of oil just to
drive around in cars.
I'm in full agreement with recycling as much as possible, but when put
into prospective, recycling is a drop in the bucket relative to the
wasteful use of oil just to move cars around.
LDC
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:56:21 +0000 (UTC) from Don Klipstein
><d...@manx.misty.com>:
>> In <MPG.22cffe9db...@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown wrote:
>> >Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:16:10 +0000 (UTC) from Don Klipstein
>> ><d...@manx.misty.com>:
>> >> I have a Nokia phone, model that I can't remember, with a calculator.
>> >> I find that cellphone calculator worse than not having one!
>> >
>> >How can it be *worse* than no calculator? "Not much better than" I
>> >could understand, but "worse"????
>>
>> Maybe I need to clarify that a little. The *$#@*(&^ cellphyone
>> calculator I find to be worse than no calculator at all if I actually use
>> it. So I don't.
>
>You still haven't said how a poor calculator is worse than no
>calculator. Unless it gives wrong answers, which I assume it doesn't,
>how could it be worse?
One simple way is that the layout could cause the user to make entry
mistakes without realizing it. In such a case the answer would
indeed be wrong for the intended calculation.
Lou
> Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:06:58 GMT from Lou <lpo...@verizon.net>:
> > By the way, I don't see the logic of multiplying by 16. The stuff
> > priced priced per ounce was in fluid ounces, a measure of volume,
> > not one-sixteenth of a pound, a measure of weight.
>
> Now that you have corrected the information you gave earlier, I agree
> with you.
>
> But before you said "ounces", not "fluid ounces", and outside of the
> precious-metals markey there are 16 ounces in a pound.
There are also 32 ounces in a quart, and those ounces have nothing to do
with weight. Since the stuff being priced was a liquid, I'd think fluid
ounces would be presumed. Which simply added insult to injury when unit
pricing the pump-sprayer container by the pound.
Don Klipstein
>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:56:21 +0000 (UTC) from Don Klipstein
><d...@manx.misty.com>:
>> In <MPG.22cffe9db...@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown wrote:
>> >Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:16:10 +0000 (UTC) from Don Klipstein
>> ><d...@manx.misty.com>:
>> >> I have a Nokia phone, model that I can't remember, with a calculator.
>> >> I find that cellphone calculator worse than not having one!
>> >
>> >How can it be *worse* than no calculator? "Not much better than" I
>> >could understand, but "worse"????
>>
>> Maybe I need to clarify that a little. The *$#@*(&^ cellphyone
>> calculator I find to be worse than no calculator at all if I actually use
>> it. So I don't.
>
>You still haven't said how a poor calculator is worse than no
>calculator. Unless it gives wrong answers, which I assume it doesn't,
>how could it be worse?
By taking more time and effort than is necessary to get the same answer
without the calculator.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)