Longrider

Tesco are to change the wording on their checkouts because people have difficulty understanding them, apparently.

Tesco is to change the wording of signs on its fast-track checkouts to avoid any linguistic dispute.

So what is so difficult?

The supermarket giant is to replace its current “10 items or less” notices with signs saying “Up to 10 items”.

What, I wonder is so difficult about “10 items or less”? It means, simply, that if I have 10 items, I can use the checkout. If I have 5 items, I can use the checkout. If I have 1 item I can use the checkout. If I have 11 items, I cannot use the checkout. Is it me? Or is the world going slowly bonkers?

Now, does “up to 10 items” mean “up to and including 9 items” or “up to and including 10 items”? We need to know.

Tesco’s move follows uncertainty over whether the current notices should use “fewer” instead of “less”.

I can’t help wondering if someone has too much time on their hands.

Courtesy of dictionary.com this definition of “fewer”:

Fewer

of a smaller number: fewer words and more action.

And among other definitions, this one for “less”:

less

fewer: less than a dozen

Would that be; a dozen items or fewer, then?

“Saying up to 10 items is easy to understand and avoids any debate,” said a spokesman for The Plain English Campaign.

As I siad earlier – does that mean “up to and including”? Or can I only go through with up to and including 9 items? Some clarity, please. Why is it, I wonder, that when the Plain English Society becomes involved, things we thought simple sometimes become more complicated? Or should that be complicated or more?

“Fewer” should be used when you are talking about items that can be counted individually, for example, “fewer than 10 apples”.

“Less” is correct when quantities cannot be individually counted in that case, e.g. “I would like less water”.

My Collins Dictionary concurs with this usage. However, going back to Dictionary.com:

Even though less has been used before plural nouns (less words; less men) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns (less sugar; less money) and singular abstract nouns (less honesty; less love). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states.

Modern standard English practice does not reflect this distinction. When followed by than, less occurs at least as often as fewer in modifying plural nouns that are not units or groups, and the use of less in this construction is increasing in all varieties of English: less than eight million people; no less than 31 of the 50 states. When not followed by than, fewer is more frequent only in formal written English, and in this construction also the use of less is increasing: This year we have had less crimes, less accidents, and less fires than in any of the last five years.

So, in English as it is spoken and used on a daily basis – since King Alfred, no less (or should that be fewer?) – “less” has been interchangeable with “fewer” and we’ve managed to rub along perfectly well. Unless one is a grammar pedant, in which case there have doubtless been some some burst blood vessels along the way. It would, therefore be incorrect to state that Tesco’s usage has been “incorrect”, it merely reflects one usage that has been perfectly acceptable in written and spoken English since Saxon times. Less formal, perhaps, but not incorrect. Or shoud that be fewer… Um, yeah, we’ll let that one pass.

Before we get all tied up in semantics and usage, does anyone seriously not understand what is meant by a checkout sign that says “10 items or less”? Seriously?

Hot on the heels of this story of sinister, creeping totalitarianism from Rob, comes this one picked up by JuliaM.

Advertisements looking for people to sign up for the unpaid “environmental volunteer” jobs have been posted across the country in recent months.

Critics said the scheme is encouraging a Big Brother society where friends and neighbours will be encouraged to “snoop” on one another.

At the risk of someone mentioning Godwin; a little lesson in history. The Gestapo during the early days of the Third Reich was not a powerful organisation. It did not have agents throughout Germany to spy on people. Instead, it exhorted the people of Germany to do its dirty work for it; to note and report to the authorities unacceptable behaviour on the part of their neighbours. They used all the right buttons with words like patriotism to sting peoples’ consciences, to encourage them to do the right thing. That was how they managed to round up people who were “unsocial” or a bit odd, mentally ill, or who were not abject followers of the party, in short; who did not fit into the ideal of the Aryan master race.

At the end of the second world war, the East German state simply picked up where the Gestapo left off with the introduction of the Stazi. Different name, same principle. Little busybodies with nothing better to do, snooping and snitching on their neighbours, settling petty squabbles and disagreements  reporting them to the authorities. This, inevitably created a situation where no one trusted anyone and were forever looking over their shoulder.

Take, for example, the people who live across the road from me. I’ve noticed (so I cannot be the only one) that they tend to just put out the one bin. In other words, they don’t appear to be putting out anything for recycling. Such a heinous offence once reported would, doubtless, leave them wondering which of their neighbours reported them. There would follow a pervasive aura of distrust that once it has taken hold is difficult to shake off.

But, supposing they don’t put out the green bin because they have nothing to recycle? Supposing they were reported erroneously? The article Rob links to relates to a database of allegations. Under New Labour, allegations are given credibility that they do not deserve. Allegations that are demonstrably baseless are to be maintained and used against the accused.

I wonder how many times I have to say it; but here goes… Sixty years ago these islands stood alone in defiance against a fascist empire that threatened to engulf the civilised world. It had swept across Europe and was but twenty miles from our shores. We stood firm and eventually with the help of our allies we drove it back. We then spent four decades in a stand-off with its successor before the people of Eastern Europe and Russia finally rebelled.

The cost in lives of the struggle against fascist totalitarianism that gripped much of the twentieth century was huge, but ultimately we deemed it worthwhile. Liberty was worth the cost, no matter how great that cost. This generation is allowing the monster back in, to rape and murder liberty and no one bats an eyelid. The fallen will be spinning in their graves.

They are not snoopers.

That is precisely what they are.

They will help councils cut crime and make places cleaner, greener and safer.

Oh, well, that’s alright, then. The Gestapo and the Stazi used similarly innocuous euphemisms for their behaviour.

According to this Times Article, the satnav is causing us to travel about in ignorance:

This weekend thousands of Britons will set off on journeys across these ancient islands following instructions that detail every roundabout and Broad on their way. Their satellite navigation systems, mobile phones or online mapping services will tell them exactly where to go.

The only thing missing will be any real sense of where they are.

Medieval churches, woodlands and stately homes will not be marked on their maps. Wetlands, Viking burial grounds, castles, cathedrals and all the quirks, nooks and crannies of the landscape will have vanished into the grey spaces between the roads.

Uh, missing the point I think. I use a satnav and have been doing so since I first hitched up a Garmin GPS receiver with my Psion Series 5 loaded with what became Tom Tom’s mapping software (they were known as Palmtop in those days). I use it for one very good reason; I can navigate while watching the road ahead and not have to stop to check the map. I do use maps when planning a journey or when looking for those heritage sites before setting out, but, frankly, I don’t give two hoots about them when I am trying to get from home to a work location (or back) in the most efficient manner possible.

In a speech to more than a thousand geographers, all of whom had managed to find their way to the building for the society’s annual conference, Mary Spence said that Britain’s heritage was being wiped from the map.

Presumably Mary Spence hasn’t come across POIs? Among which, coincidentally (or not) are, er, heritage sites. Well I never!

—————————————————————-

Update: Via JuliaM in the comments Dizzy has picked up on this one, too.

—————————————————————-

Another update: Jeremy Jacobs making an off-topic comment over at The Broadstreet Rag came up with this piece of nonsense:

Can we ban sat-navs as well?

Pointless invention.

I don’t know whether he is being “ironic” or obtuse, but the use of the “ban” word is guaranteed to make my blood boil. I appreciate that many people don’t see the need for this technology. Fine. I don’t see the need for computer games. But – and here’s the crucial point – you will never see me calling for them to be banned. I don’t like computer games, so I don’t buy them. I do not suggest that everyone else be forced to comply with my prejudices. It’s a simple enough concept – yet it is one apparently intelligent people have difficulty grasping.

I’m going to draw a line under this discussion. It has demonstrated conclusively my opening point that attempting to discuss the issue of paedophilia and how society should deal with it is impossible as sooner or later, some half-wit starts to make wild assumptions and throw about unfounded assertions in a childish hissy-fit because someone dares to disagree with them.

There was a brief point (much like a cat toying with a half dead mouse) when it was mildly entertaining to see just how many logical fallacies DJ could notch up. In the space of three posts I counted the strawman (by far the most common – the latest post is almost entirely strawman), the false dichotomy, the loaded question, the red herring, the non sequitur, the lie, the appeal to emotion, appeal to ridicule, poisoning the well, and, of course, despite my original comments being a rational and polite disagreement with points he had made, the ad hominem. To be fair, I’ve responded with one or two of those, myself, so I’m inclined to let that one slide. That said, given his behaviour, they were thoroughly deserved.

I expect, if one bothers, there will be more. In essence, if you don’t agree with Dumb Jon, you are a paedophile apologist and don’t understand morality. His statements to that effect are libellous. This is not “a desperate talking point”; it is an observable fact. I said it before, I’ll say it again; what a fucking nasty, abominable little shit this man is. One might, given the hysteria, be inclined to be reminded of Hamlet Act 3, scene 2. One might, but I wouldn’t be that cruel… would I? Okay, maybe I would.

Zorro, commenting here on DJ’s debating skills, suggested that he has the reasoning and writing skills of a nine year old. This, I suggest, is unfair to nine year olds. I’ve come across plenty in my time who would outwit this man of limited intellect with ease.

Still, it’s nice to know that it is not only the left of blogistan that produces semi-literate morons with a malicious temperament, eh?

I’ve been discussing with Doctor Vee the merits of those blogs I read on a regular basis.

That is what I look for; good use of language, well constructed arguments and a thoughtful - hopefully thought provoking - discussion.

Yes, well, don’t expect to find any of that over at House of Dumb.

Okay, that is it. No more. I’ve already given him more attention than he deserves.

——————————————-

Update: From Obnoxio on the previous post:

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Indeed. Point taken.

——————————————-

Update: It’s funny how something can happen that drags up long forgotten memories. Somewhat belatedly, this incident reminded me of someone who I had thought forgotten some thirty years ago. I met this indivudual during my college years. Initially he was popular as he was always laughing and joking – the life and soul, as it were. However, lacking any genuine wit or cleverness of his own, his humour was of the predatory kind, needing a victim to be the butt of the jokes. Mostly, it was practical humour but sometimes it was a crueler variety whereby he would take a statement someone had made, twist it out of all proportion until it was unrecognisable and then use it to ridicule and belittle his chosen target; always delivered with a self-righteous, sneering, jeering tone so typical of the despicable little bully that he was. These days, I recognise the logical fallacy he used as the strawman – although it is not usually used quite so deliberately or vindictively.

As people became the target of his puerile, sociopathic humour, one by one, they cottoned on and realised that he was not a jolly fellow after all, but an arsehole. These days in the Internet age, we have a different term. We refer to such people as trolls.

To any readers who twigged this already, I apologise for my tardiness in catching on. Sometimes when involved in what you think is a discussion, you are too close to see it. I have now.

…who emailed me asking me to link to their online poker site; did you not notice the complete lack of commercial advertising here? And, if there was commercial advertising, it wouldn’t be to gambling sites anyway as I disapprove of gambling.

And… this might just go into more detail about why you are now in my SPAM filter.

The Landed Underclass on libertarian bloggers:

Sitting around in the sizeable leather armchairs of our vitual but agreeable gentlemens’ club, harrumphing in a tweedy, monocled Greek chorus at what one of our number has just found in the paper under which he was so recently asleep, is a damn good bonding-ritual but it’s unlikely to deliver regime-change.

Oh dear. He’s right, though, isn’t he?

Rory Cellan-Jones is discussing forums where people discuss credit card fraud.

In the last few days, I’ve entered a whole new web world. It’s a place where people speak of getting “dumps… sniffed from ATMs” or using “blinds to cash out” or getting data through “rj 45 taps.” The language belongs to a criminal community - the people who make a living out of credit card fraud.

I can’t say that I am over surprised by this. I’ve had credit cards for about twenty or so years. During that time, I’ve never had one stolen yet in the past couple of months two have been compromised. Fortunately, the compromise was spotted and nothing was lost. However, both are Chip’n’PIN, which is interesting.

Don’t let anyone tell you that Chip’n’PIN is secure. It isn’t – that is probably the biggest example of credit card fraud yet let loose on an unsuspecting public.

As one commenter points out:

So what exactly was the point of chip-and-pin? Since its introduction I’ve had my card used fraudulently on three different occasions, and the card has never been out of my possession.

Quite. My experience, too.

So if these rat-bags are able to clone cards and bypass whatever security the chip-and-pin system was supposed to provide in the first place, why did the banks bother with it?

To protect themselves, I suspect.