<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Packing Efficiency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/</link>
	<description>The odd parity bit</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:15:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kenman</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-27314</link>
		<dc:creator>kenman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-27314</guid>
		<description>The reason for the over-sized packing is primarily due to 1 reason, with a second, supporting reason:

Primary reason: Larger packages are harder to lose while running the gauntlet of the various shipping carriers. Instead of buying the insurance offered by these carriers, just make the package large enough that only a bumbling idiot could lose it.

Supporting reason: It&#039;s much cheaper and efficient. Factor in the costs of maintaining 500 assorted sizes of boxes on hand versus just 5. You have to organize, reorder, etc. And what happens when you discontinue that single product that was using the a box size that no other products use? Yeah, you eat those boxes. Also, I&#039;d hazard a guess that the non-standard sized boxes cost alot more; just get 5 boxes that cover that the spectrum and that problem is effectively solved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason for the over-sized packing is primarily due to 1 reason, with a second, supporting reason:</p>
<p>Primary reason: Larger packages are harder to lose while running the gauntlet of the various shipping carriers. Instead of buying the insurance offered by these carriers, just make the package large enough that only a bumbling idiot could lose it.</p>
<p>Supporting reason: It&#8217;s much cheaper and efficient. Factor in the costs of maintaining 500 assorted sizes of boxes on hand versus just 5. You have to organize, reorder, etc. And what happens when you discontinue that single product that was using the a box size that no other products use? Yeah, you eat those boxes. Also, I&#8217;d hazard a guess that the non-standard sized boxes cost alot more; just get 5 boxes that cover that the spectrum and that problem is effectively solved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23843</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23843</guid>
		<description>http://www.flickr.com/groups/overpackagedproducts/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/overpackagedproducts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/groups/overpackagedproducts/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crf</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23810</link>
		<dc:creator>crf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23810</guid>
		<description>Since many companies and governments are advocating a cap and trade system (as opposed to a carbon tax), perhaps shipping companies are being deliberately and gratuitously inefficient in order have a greater than necessary carbon footprint for their industry, which can then easily, at almost no cost, be reduced to be well under their cap (and accrue a benefit they can sell to other industries.) Under threat of cap and trade, currently companies would want to maximise their carbon footprint, while minimizing current costs as well as the future costs to reduce their footprints.

It&#039;s a slightly absurd explantion :D, but the prevalence of such packaging is also an absurdity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since many companies and governments are advocating a cap and trade system (as opposed to a carbon tax), perhaps shipping companies are being deliberately and gratuitously inefficient in order have a greater than necessary carbon footprint for their industry, which can then easily, at almost no cost, be reduced to be well under their cap (and accrue a benefit they can sell to other industries.) Under threat of cap and trade, currently companies would want to maximise their carbon footprint, while minimizing current costs as well as the future costs to reduce their footprints.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a slightly absurd explantion :D, but the prevalence of such packaging is also an absurdity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Dolske</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23713</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Dolske</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23713</guid>
		<description>I suppose theft could be one reason, but I suspect it&#039;s just because either their usual shippers have a minimum package size, or there&#039;s no cost/complexity savings on their end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suppose theft could be one reason, but I suspect it&#8217;s just because either their usual shippers have a minimum package size, or there&#8217;s no cost/complexity savings on their end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vinzz</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23698</link>
		<dc:creator>vinzz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23698</guid>
		<description>I was once told in was done on purpose because big package are a lot harder to stole while being in transit than small ones. And it seems reasonable, isn&#039;t it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was once told in was done on purpose because big package are a lot harder to stole while being in transit than small ones. And it seems reasonable, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Accettura</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23688</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Accettura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23688</guid>
		<description>Yup.  I can recall one time almost thinking they shipped an empty box, to find the tiny product mixed within the 300 sq ft of packing peanuts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yup.  I can recall one time almost thinking they shipped an empty box, to find the tiny product mixed within the 300 sq ft of packing peanuts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fourstar</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23685</link>
		<dc:creator>fourstar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23685</guid>
		<description>@Robin: if the stupid sized box I got from play.com with a 2GB RAM upgrade is anything to go on, they&#039;re not working...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Robin: if the stupid sized box I got from play.com with a 2GB RAM upgrade is anything to go on, they&#8217;re not working&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23657</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23657</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know about the US, but in the UK there are packaging efficiency laws in place to try and stop this sort of thing...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know about the US, but in the UK there are packaging efficiency laws in place to try and stop this sort of thing&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Chee</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-23644</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Chee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/#comment-23644</guid>
		<description>That would be &quot;a Ford Transit hurtling down the M6&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That would be &#8220;a Ford Transit hurtling down the M6&#8243;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

