dishstaller said:

Then they are stupid. Everyone knows that the price per ounce should be the price per ounce of actual product.

Click to expand...

Juan said:

You are paying for the whole thing

Click to expand...

telstar_1 said:

Well, the bag can't weigh that much, right? But by law food product packaging must display the actual net weight of the product, i.e., the contents of the container, so by any logic, if not law, a store's stated per-ounce cost should reflect that figure. But since there's not any law regulating shelf statements, a store can say whatever it wants without violating any rules. So I guess the answer is more consumer legislation. Or simply caveat emptor.

Click to expand...

Juan said:

.a bag...not much

Click to expand...

telstar_1 said:

Well, the bag can't weigh that much, right? But by law food product packaging must display the actual net weight of the product, i.e., the contents of the container, so by any logic, if not law, a store's stated per-ounce cost should reflect that figure. But since there's not any law regulating shelf statements, a store can say whatever it wants without violating any rules. So I guess the answer is more consumer legislation. Or simply caveat emptor.

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

I would think that the Vendor/Maker of the product would have a say in it, showing the Correct weight ...
You would think it would be in the contract.

I do look at the ounces of items, but unless its way off, I don't check the math, may have to start now.

Remember when you use to get a 13.5 oz bag of Chips .... Thats a PARTY Size now.

Click to expand...

TRG said:

I remember when a pound of coffee was 16oz. Now its 12oz, they don't call it a pound anymore and its three times the cost of the 16oz pound.

Click to expand...

dishstaller said:

Well, according to the price per ounce on that first bag of coffee he mentions, that would mean the bag weighed over 6 ounces. That bag does NOT weigh 6 ounces. According to Google, an empty bag weighs half an ounce.

Click to expand...

Juan said:

You need to weigh the actual bag...a deli bag weighs less than that but a thick coffee bag is gonna weigh around an ounce...an empty tin can has some weight

Click to expand...

NYDutch said:

Products sold by the ounce, pound, etc, should always be priced for the product only.

Click to expand...

harshness said:

Unless the specific product or its packaging is known at the time of weighing, estimating the tare weight for a PoS system is a tall order.

I'm pretty sure that produce bags can't get any thinner.

You certainly don't want to put unbagged produce on a belt, scale, or in a clerk's hands (gloved or not).

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

Well, they don't call it a pound anymore ....

Ice cream is that way too, use to be a half gallon, now its 1.5 quart or some say 48 oz

Click to expand...

(((Garyd))) said:

Is it real Ice-cream?

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

Is it Real Ice cream ???
Depends on what your talking about.

Click to expand...

(((Garyd))) said:

Most don't have any milk in them

Click to expand...

Maybe There Was an Egg Cartel After All​

Jimbo said:

I would think that all the packaging would already be accounted for ... they weigh the container, subtract that from the scale, then add the product , so its weighing the Product only

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

REAL Ice Cream Does have Milk ... many of them are just Frozen desserts, pretending to be Ice Cream.

Click to expand...

telstar_1 said:

I believe that per federal law the "net weight" of the given commodity, without regard to its packaging or the particular weight of that, must be clearly stated by the producer on the packaging. As in "Net wt. 2 lbs., 7 oz." So now the stores themselves commonly state a $ "per oz." or "per count" figure at the shelf whereas they never used to, supposedly to help people to comparison shop and/or to demonstrate that they are offering good prices. I would make the first assumption that they are simply taking the product label net weight and translating from that, as that would seem both the most logical as well as the easiest. If they're otherwise plopping the product onto a scale to arrive at a stated unit cost, then obviously that adds time & effort.

The ultimate question would be, if they are doing that, what really would it gain them? They'd get to show a very slightly lower unit price, but then presumably the competition between brands would still be even. I don't see how it can really much matter, but on principle there should be rules in this regard.

Click to expand...

Foxbat said:

Mrs. Foxbat and I are enjoying another great season so far. We only had to turn on the captions a few times.

Click to expand...

klang said:

I'm sure I will watch at least the first episode but I am not optimistic.

Click to expand...

klang said:

Here i am over a year later and just finished season 1. Not great but not as bad as I was expecting. Did not care for the barefoot captain stuff but overall ok. Actually looking forward to see what they did for season 2.

Click to expand...

MikeD-C05 said:

I kept thinking of how dirty her feet would get traipsing around shoe-less.

Click to expand...

harshness said:

Where would this "dirt" come from? Dead skin and dandruff?

Click to expand...

MikeD-C05 said:

There would still be dirt ,dust in the future I am sure.

Click to expand...

harshness said:

Where is it going to come from -- specifically?

Why do you think cleaning technology won't improve in the next few hundred years? HEPA filtration was invented as part of the Manhattan Project.

Click to expand...

MikeD-C05 said:

I don't know, but I still don't like her walking through the station or the academy with out her shoes. It looks unprofessional and very "hippy like" for someone of her status and I personally don't get off to feet, so there is that.

Click to expand...

MikeD-C05 said:

I don't know, but I still don't like her walking through the station or the academy with out her shoes.

Click to expand...

osu1991 said:

Stay out of my office. I rarely have shoes or socks on in the office. My office and business is at home though

Click to expand...

MikeD-C05 said:

Gives off 1960 Hippie vibes.

Click to expand...

ncted said:

Comcast called fiber pricing "irrational" because the ROI is over three years. What is irrational to me is Comcast internet is based on lines they put in the ground decades ago at this point, for the most part. Is copper that much more expensive to maintain?

Click to expand...

brice52 said:

yes. even copper lines in a house degrade over 70 years, I doubt coax would last that long. Fiber Optic on the isp side will last over 70 years with very dedgration

Click to expand...

(((Garyd))) said:

The fiber coming in to the house looks like 300 ohm old TV wire I think that is the weak point.

Click to expand...

brice52 said:

yes. even copper lines in a house degrade over 70 years, I doubt coax would last that long. Fiber Optic on the isp side will last over 70 years with very dedgration

Click to expand...

DIRECTV today announced a new multi-year distribution agreement with the National Hockey League for Hurricanes Hockey Network, Blue Jackets Hockey Network, Wild+, and Blue Note+ pregame, postgame, and in-game live sports services.

Each of the four channels will be available to DIRECTV streaming and satellite customers who live in each team's NHL-designated home territory and subscribe to Choice and higher packages, and each U-verse customer in those same regions who subscribes to U200 and above.

This agreement also provides distribution rights to each NHL team to all of DIRECTV FOR BUSINESS's thousands of sports bars, restaurants, fitness clubs, and other commercial venues located within each team's respective region.

DIRECTV has recently obtained regional or local rights to provide 76 of the 81 U.S.-based NHL, NBA, or MLB franchises to their local fans, including multi-year agreements for 23 U.S.-based hockey teams.

Click to expand...

DIRECTV has recently obtained regional or local rights to provide 76 of the 81 U.S.-based NHL, NBA, or MLB franchises to their local fans, including multi-year agreements for 23 U.S.-based hockey teams.

Click to expand...

Bruce said:

And again, 15 months in a row, streaming wins-

Cable and Broadcast added together-36.4%

Streaming with a massive 49.6%, 13.2% higher than Broadcast/Streaming.

View attachment 194983

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

But they ARE Streaming as well, so they Should be counted as both, which would make the Streaming numbers even More prominate.

Q.
Who does the Counting for Streaming ?

Neilson does the Broadcast/Cable ...

Click to expand...

Bruce said:

Same.

Ratings for streaming content is extremely accurate, since the service knows who is watching what and when, when we hit ok on our remotes.

Ratings for Broadcast/Cable shows has always been a estimate.

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

If I flip thru shows on an app, 3-4 in a few minutes, does that still show that I watched the whole episode ?


If I watch the Super Bowl for 5 minutes, does that count as watching the Super Bowl ?
Is it the same if I just watched the Commercials.

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

Your Still Thrilled about all this ?

These numbers will Never be accurate as many people use Both still ...

Click to expand...

Jimbo said:

Q.
Who does the Counting for Streaming ?

Neilson does the Broadcast/Cable ...

Click to expand...

savarese04 said:

Nobody is "happy" or "sad" about this. Simply posting data in an non-editorialized way has nothing to do with anyone's feelings.

The data on the streaming side is immensely accurate, I'm guessing to the millisecond. Plus most people likely have not turned off data sharing and thus they are grabbing a huge swath of data. Much more accurate than cable which relies on a smaller sample size and probably not to the second.

In either case, nobody is getting "double counted" because it's usage based. If I watch 100 minutes of content and 30 minutes is on Youtube and 20 minutes on Disney and 50 minutes on YTTV, it's going to show up as 30%, 20%, 50% slices of my personal pie respectively.

Nielsen does. If you go into the settings of any of your streaming accounts, you can turn off the option to share to usage data with their third party measuring service - Nielsen.

Click to expand...

TRG said:

I set up a music server for my brother a few years ago. It's basically a small headless computer but it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.

Click to expand...