Cans and Bottles - OR - Cans or Bottles? (1 Viewer)

[Libre]

There’s a garbage bin in our lunch area at work.It has three compartments. At the top of each compartment is a hole through which you are supposed to pass the garbage. Next to each hole is a brief description of what KIND of garbage to place in each compartment. This is more or less routine, since the advent of recycling.On the bin at work, two compartments are labeled “TRASH” and one is labeled “CANS AND BOTTLES”.
I started thinking about that label – the one that says “CANS AND BOTTLES”. As a programmer, I’m always evaluating the logic of the rules and instructions that are handed down by the upper echelons, and usually find the logic to be faulty. Example – again from the recycling rules:The dept of sanitation handed out a sheet of DOs and DON’Ts. It said DON’T dispose of any containers that contained CHEMICALS in the recycling bin. I called them up. After waiting on hold I finally got a representative. I asked her what they meant by the term “chemicals”. She said, “You know … CHEMICALS!” I informed her that any substance including water (hydrogen hydroxide) could be considered a chemical. She hung up on me in frustration shortly before I did the same. To me this was no trivial matter – serious consequences could result in improper disposal, including putative fines. Maybe the term HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS would have been better? But that still leaves the judgement on the part of the disposer.

So, I have found that the authorities have a long history of mandating rules that are chock full of ambiguity and illogical instructions. Just look at the instructions for tax filing if you need more proof.
To continue, I was evaluating the rule of “CANS AND BOTTLES” and came to the conclusion that the rule SHOULD be stated:“CANS OR BOTTLES”. The way it is stated, with the AND operator, to qualify for disposal in that trash bin, an object would have to simultaneously be both a can and a bottle, whereas with the OR operator, EITHER a can OR a bottle would qualify. That seemed to me the correct instruction at the time, and I informed the maintenance manager who was responsible for the containers. His reaction was quite similar to that of the Dept of Sanitation rep I had spoken to about chemicals. True, in this case I was being funny (or I thought I was) but still, faulty logic on signs both annoy me and at the same time they give me some satisfaction.
Then I began to think I was wrong about the AND vs the OR operator. In programming, mistakenly using one when the other is needed results in garbage (or at the very least, incorrect) output. But here I did begin to think that it really should be CANS AND BOTTLES, in the way that an EMCEE of a ceremony might say “LADIES AND GENTLEMEN”. Surely the emcee is not restricting his comments to only hermaphrodites. Should he be addressing ladies OR gentlemen? That doesn’t seem quite right either. All of a sudden the ambiguity seemed to shift and now the OR operator seemed to apply to people who are either ladies OR gentlemen – again, the very rare hermaphrodite.

So, of those among you who, like me, pause to consider such things (and I would imagine that programmers, as a group, would tend to do so), which do you think is correct in this case?
Is it CANS AND BOTTLES – or should it be – CANS OR BOTTLES?

 

[KenHigg]

Seems if you had 'or' and someone put in a can the you should only put in cans from that point forward - ?

 

[Libre]

Seems if you had 'or' and someone put in a can the you should only put in cans from that point forward - ?

Another reasonable interpretation. However the bin is not transparent - the can (or bottle) vanishes once dropped in so it would be hard to maintain compliance with the rule. But yes, thinking about it that way, AND is the correct operator, not OR.
When did throwing garbage away become so complicated?

 

[Brianwarnock]

When did throwing garbage away become so complicated?

When you have too much time on your hands.

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

Guess I grew up in another era (the beginning) but I tend to look at it a little different.

For People, the 'AND' is necessary. If you had a sign 'Cans OR Bottles' and a person comes upon the bin carrying both a can and a bottle which one are they allowed to throw away? Requires a decision here?

'Can and Bottles' would immediately receive both of them. Conclusion........most of the time people are just NOT logical thinkers the way computers are.! It is easier when no decision has to be made when dealing with the public!!!!!!?

As far as the Ladies and Gentlemen goes, the speaker is speaking to one group and in addition to another group as well. Thus he is speaking to both groups. This is what the audience hears.

If you used an 'OR' he will be speaking to one group OR the other.group but not both.......The audience would have to decide who the speaker was talking to. Guess the speaker could leave clues like the length of the dresses or talk about the differences in the ties, etc.......Either way a decision would have to be made..

lol....... computers do screw with out minds in a way the normal person just cannot understand.


Blade

 

[Libre]

Hey. Blade, and Brian.
You know, I've been fouled up when programming more than once by using the incorrect operator. People can interpret unclear instructions - as well as being unable to interpret clear instructions. With a computer compiler, everything has to be just so to get the expected output. It has especially fouled me up when using the negative - in other words, something like NO cans and bottles - or no cans or bottles. That really blows my mind as far as which is right.
Brian - how is it that I have too much time on my hands, yet I have a full time job and a couple of part time ones? Maybe I have too much time, OR you have too little time.
Wait, maybe that should be AND you have too little time.
Be that as it may, most of the startling and original thoughts have occurred in the minds of people with too much time on their hands. I'm gratified that so many people have said that about me. Maybe I should use more of that time watching TV?

 

[Anakardian]

Or just change the sign to a pictogram showing a bottle and can.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Oh dear! Oh dear! I didn't realise that Libre was taking this so seriously, especially since the reason that it is CANS AND BOTTLES is so obvious, the sign is not telling YOU what you can put in there, it is telling you what the container can contain.

Brian

 

[Libre]

Oh dear! Oh dear! I didn't realise that Libre was taking this so seriously, especially since the reason that it is CANS AND BOTTLES is so obvious, the sign is not telling YOU what you can put in there, it is telling you what the container can contain.

Brian

Hey Brian-
Well, don't fret. I do take certain things seriously- I like absolute precision in a specification, and yet I rarely see it. But this is not such a case - the meaning is abundantly clear as you pointed out. It's more a case of a logical construct, what it technically means and what it doesn't. It fascinates me. Others may not find anything of interest here - they may pursue their own interests. I can discuss logical fallacies and the construction of sound arguments until the cows come home - but it's rare that I encounter anyone else who's willing.

 

[Rx_]

My perspective for recycling is: do it if it really make a difference.

The modern era of recycling began in the meandering wake of the Mobro 4000. The infamous garbage barge spent much of 1987 traveling up and down the eastern seaboard looking for a place to dump its 3000-ton load of New York trash. It was refused at every port. By the time the spurned vessel returned to Long Island, still ferrying its fetid cargo, it had become the poster child for what was trumpeted as a national crisis: dwindling landfill space. Faced with the scale of their own refuse, Americans took action. Nascent recycling programs blossomed into major operations. Municipalities invested in trucks for curbside pickups and in facilities to handle mountains of castoff material. Kindergartners were taught the virtues of separating clear glass from green. Almost overnight, it seemed, recycling was embraced by the public as a kind of all-purpose absolution for our environmental sins.
Yet doubts remained. Some critics wondered if, far from being an environmental panacea, recycling is actually a giant placebo that makes us feel virtuous but wastes both money and resources.
Take the much- maligned plastic water bottle. It's almost always made from petroleum, a resource that certainly seems worth conserving, and if you chuck it in the trash, the container will live on in a landfill for centuries. But how much diesel fuel does the truck that collects these bottles burn? How much energy does the recycling plant consume; what fumes does it emit into the atmosphere? And what does it all cost, anyway?

Example: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a3752/4291566/

 

[Libre]

Surely the concept of recycling waste material rather than disposing of it can't be a bad idea. If the execution is inefficient that doesn't mean the concept is bad, it means the execution has to be improved.

 

[Anakardian]

In Denmark there was once a large scale project to collect bio-degradeable waste from households and use it to generate biogas.
It would be mixed with pig manure in the reactor at a rate of 5-10% household waste.

The plant suffered from continuous problems caused by plastic bags. they would either NOT break, leaving it floating on top or break and get tangled in the stirring device.

All politicians considered it a great success and proved how green they were.

That is, until a student sat down and examined the whole idea.
Using pig manure to generate biogas and return fertiliser to the farmers was found to be a good and efficient idea.
The household waste was a very different story.
Apart from all the problems, the energy used to collect and seperate the waste exceeded the energy generated by the entire plant.
The household waste collection was quietly stopped and everything from the households were sent into the incinerators to provide power and heat. That way the energy potential was maximised.
Those households that could compost their waste were encouraged to do so as that would be the most efficient.

The morale is that sometimes a good idea is not that great when everything is taken into account.

 

[kevlray]

I thought that most recycled plastic ends up as different plastic product (i.e., plastic picnic table, plastic boards, etc.). At the rate that most Americans use bottled water (I do not), I think we would have a surplus of plastic waiting to be converted to something else.