>>  Think about how many times the cashier has to tap in the EAN
>>> because the barcode reader does not work on a product (about 5% bad
>>> reads are valid even by barcode reader manufacturer standards for a
>>> variety of reasons).
>
> Anyway:  5% not read rate is excessive other on frozen or irregularly
> packaged goods, and the misread rate (code accepted as valid when not
> matching the actual UPC) is far lower.

Who cares why. Two items out of ten checked out do not read right and 
must be repeated (several times). One in ten must be typed by hand. One 
in twenty may have been registered wrong in the first place. Oil on the 
package, smeared paint, wet, torn, less than perfect lighting, it all 
adds up. It's not just the reader. The point is, that if the cashier 
types all the numbers in, he/she will make *more* mistakes than the 
barcode reader. Therefore the barcode+cashier system is better than the 
cashier, at a cost. Same with RFID or whatever.

> But the point of RFID is to drastically increase the checkout speed and
> reduce manpower needed at the checkout, as well as making store inventory a
> breeze.

And it will stop global warming and revive the dodo bird. Can you give 
an example of an instance in history when a large scale problem's 
technical solution was switched from a simple one to a complex one, and 
things got better ? Especially when the technology was very new ?

Peter
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist