From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:01:52 -0800, J�rgen Exner
<jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Same happened to me yesterday in the supermarket. Two products, for one
>>>the price given in $/pound, for the other in $/ounce. How do you compare
>>>them on the spot? No, I cannot do a multiplication by 16 in my mind on
>>>the spot in front of the shelf, I do need paper and pencil.
>>>
>>>Using the metric system it would have been trivial, even if they had
>>>used different sizes, e.g. $/kg and $/100g. Just shift the comma and you
>>>are done.
>>>
>>>Not so with the US units. There a pocket calculator seems to be
>>>mandatory for grocery shopping.
>>>
>>You think?
>
>No, I don't think, I know. It happened yesterday while I was looking for
>fresh steaks in the meat aisle in a Safeway store.

This doesn't ring of truth. Fresh meat is priced per pound. All the
steaks would be priced per pound. Packages have different prices
because they contain different amounts of weight. I can't imagine
you'd need a calculator to compare prices.


>>Every supermarket in this area has a shelf tag that gives
>>the price per common unit on comparable items. In other words, in the
>>cereal aisle, the tags will all show the price per ounce for the
>>cereal even if the box is labeled by units other than just ounces.
>
>And yes, I am talking about the price on the label on the shelf (which
>happened to match the pricing unit on the individual article, too).

Perhaps where you are it's different, or perhaps you didn't look at
the label carefully. Canned or boxed goods, in this area, can all be
compared by ounce price regardless of the weight in the can or box.

Here's an example:

http://www.ses.wsu.edu/Grants/StoreShelf.htm It shows that Jiffy
Peanut Butter is 13.24 cents per ounce. That allows you to compare
other brands, and other sizes of the same brand, by cost-per-ounce.
No calculator needed.

I've used this tag feature and found that the "economy" size is not
always the most economical size to purchase.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:41:14 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
<secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:

>>
>> It was true. When the US got going it used different standards to help
>> the indigenous industry and confuse importers as the US had zero
>> industry when it started.
>
>You have some very strange notions, Chris, I'll say that for you.
>
>In the U.S. we used (and still use) the standard units of measure we
>inherited from the English. American inches, feet, yards and miles are
>exactly the same as English inches, feet, yards and miles.

When it comes to subjects about the US, Chris has no credibility.
Sometimes he outright lies, and sometimes he parrots some "fact" that
he'd like to be true.

The first standardization of the measurement we call the "foot" was by
the Mesopotamians in 2575 BC. England set a standard for this
measurement in 1303 AD, long before the US was colonized by Europeans.
The story of the measurement being the length of King Henry I's foot
at 12 inches has been disproved because there were instances of
referral to the 12 inch foot before Henry's birth.

We, as you have said, copied the English system of measurement. That
would hardly preclude US products being made to a different standard
to help our infant industries. We were using the same standard that
the mature industries of England were using.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: J. Clarke on
tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:01:52 -0800, J�rgen Exner
> <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Same happened to me yesterday in the supermarket. Two products,
>>>> for one the price given in $/pound, for the other in $/ounce. How
>>>> do you compare them on the spot? No, I cannot do a multiplication
>>>> by 16 in my mind on the spot in front of the shelf, I do need
>>>> paper and pencil.
>>>>
>>>> Using the metric system it would have been trivial, even if they
>>>> had used different sizes, e.g. $/kg and $/100g. Just shift the
>>>> comma and you are done.
>>>>
>>>> Not so with the US units. There a pocket calculator seems to be
>>>> mandatory for grocery shopping.
>>>>
>>> You think?
>>
>> No, I don't think, I know. It happened yesterday while I was looking
>> for fresh steaks in the meat aisle in a Safeway store.
>
> This doesn't ring of truth. Fresh meat is priced per pound. All the
> steaks would be priced per pound. Packages have different prices
> because they contain different amounts of weight. I can't imagine
> you'd need a calculator to compare prices.

I've never seen fresh meat packaged other than with the price of the package
and the price per pound on it.

>>> Every supermarket in this area has a shelf tag that gives
>>> the price per common unit on comparable items. In other words, in
>>> the cereal aisle, the tags will all show the price per ounce for the
>>> cereal even if the box is labeled by units other than just ounces.
>>
>> And yes, I am talking about the price on the label on the shelf
>> (which happened to match the pricing unit on the individual article,
>> too).
>
> Perhaps where you are it's different, or perhaps you didn't look at
> the label carefully. Canned or boxed goods, in this area, can all be
> compared by ounce price regardless of the weight in the can or box.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> http://www.ses.wsu.edu/Grants/StoreShelf.htm It shows that Jiffy
> Peanut Butter is 13.24 cents per ounce. That allows you to compare
> other brands, and other sizes of the same brand, by cost-per-ounce.
> No calculator needed.
>
> I've used this tag feature and found that the "economy" size is not
> always the most economical size to purchase.

Dunno about where you are but around here sometimes one tag is in cost per
ounce and another is in cost per pound, on items of the same kind with
different brands or different package sizes.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:vq46g5l3iag3gtemh8228i0o85l2hai2tm(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:37:15 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:40:29 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note that the same reason has been suggested for the fact that
>>>> British .303 service rifle ammunition was made with bullets having
>>>> an aluminum nose cone under the jacket, making the bullet somewhat
>>>> tail-end-heavy. Thus the ammunition met the Geneva Conventions
>>>> requirements for full jacketed (theoretically "humane") bullets, but
>>>> because it was somewhat likely to topple passing through the target
>>>> it could actually be more destructive than if it had been soft-nosed.
>>>
>>> Many years ago I was involved in military target shooting with the
>>> British No4 rifle and also Bren guns using the more powereful Mk VIII
>>> amunition. We were shooting at ranges between 100 and 800 yards at
>>> 6'x6' targets. I saw the holes left by many thousands of 303 ounds and
>>> as far as I know they all went straight through the target unless they
>>> had first clipped the top of the butt. I never saw any other evidence
>>> of a tumbling round.
>>
>>There wouldn't have been any tumbling *in flight*, only after striking and
>>entering some substantial target such as a body. Assuming your targets
>>were
>>heavy paper (as ours were in the U.S. Army), the bullets would have passed
>>straight through leaving only a neat round hole.
>
> I didn't realise you meant tumbling after impact as I know some
> weapons suffer(?) from tumbling in flight and I thought that was what
> you meant.

I've seen exactly one gun that did that. A friend of mine bought a Llama .22
automatic, a cute little thing, styled like a scaled-down M1911A1. When he
took it to our club's indoor 50-foot range, it turned out to be hopelessly
inaccurate. The reason was obvious when the target was reeled in: a good
portion of the bullets had apparently gone through the paper sideways. I've
never seen anything like that before or since. And he bought the pistol
brand new, I'm pretty sure.

I once had an ex-military Llama in 9mm/.38 caliber that was a very good
pistol. But the commercial models seem to have been rather crappy.

>>
>>Also, the .303 ammunition made that way was the Mark VII if I recall
>>correctly. I have no idea whether that method of manufacturer was still
>>used
>>with the Mark VIII type.
>>
> Google is our friend. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British
> for the full story. It confirms that you are right about what the
> bullet does after impact.

Thank you.


From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:33:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:01:52 -0800, J�rgen Exner
>> <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> Same happened to me yesterday in the supermarket. Two products,
>>>>> for one the price given in $/pound, for the other in $/ounce. How
>>>>> do you compare them on the spot? No, I cannot do a multiplication
>>>>> by 16 in my mind on the spot in front of the shelf, I do need
>>>>> paper and pencil.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using the metric system it would have been trivial, even if they
>>>>> had used different sizes, e.g. $/kg and $/100g. Just shift the
>>>>> comma and you are done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so with the US units. There a pocket calculator seems to be
>>>>> mandatory for grocery shopping.
>>>>>
>>>> You think?
>>>
>>> No, I don't think, I know. It happened yesterday while I was looking
>>> for fresh steaks in the meat aisle in a Safeway store.
>>
>> This doesn't ring of truth. Fresh meat is priced per pound. All the
>> steaks would be priced per pound. Packages have different prices
>> because they contain different amounts of weight. I can't imagine
>> you'd need a calculator to compare prices.
>
>I've never seen fresh meat packaged other than with the price of the package
>and the price per pound on it.


Yes, that's what I said. If hamburger is priced at X per pound, you
can compare that with ground chuck at Y per pound.

>
>>>> Every supermarket in this area has a shelf tag that gives
>>>> the price per common unit on comparable items. In other words, in
>>>> the cereal aisle, the tags will all show the price per ounce for the
>>>> cereal even if the box is labeled by units other than just ounces.
>>>
>>> And yes, I am talking about the price on the label on the shelf
>>> (which happened to match the pricing unit on the individual article,
>>> too).
>>
>> Perhaps where you are it's different, or perhaps you didn't look at
>> the label carefully. Canned or boxed goods, in this area, can all be
>> compared by ounce price regardless of the weight in the can or box.
>>
>> Here's an example:
>>
>> http://www.ses.wsu.edu/Grants/StoreShelf.htm It shows that Jiffy
>> Peanut Butter is 13.24 cents per ounce. That allows you to compare
>> other brands, and other sizes of the same brand, by cost-per-ounce.
>> No calculator needed.
>>
>> I've used this tag feature and found that the "economy" size is not
>> always the most economical size to purchase.
>
>Dunno about where you are but around here sometimes one tag is in cost per
>ounce and another is in cost per pound, on items of the same kind with
>different brands or different package sizes.

I recognize that practices may be different in different areas, and
that one supermarket chain may have a different practice from another,
but Publix, Winn Dixie, and Albertson's all do it the same here. The
shelf tag will show the price of the box/can *and* the price per
common unit. Usually the common unit is an ounce.

Winn Dixie adds a third price: the "loyalty" price. It's lower price
available if you sign up for their store card.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida