[sub]I think this belongs here, but if not, will the mods please move it to an appropriate place?[/sub]
I’m a little confused by the use of the word ‘less’ when I think it should be the word ‘fewer’. A couple of examples:
From a magazine: “…produce more crops with less resources.”
An express line: “10 items or less”
My education (a long time ago) and my experience suggest that the word ‘less’ in the above examples should actually be replaced by the word ‘fewer’.
Has something changed since I went to school, or, was I absent the day they changed?
Bob
I wouldn’t use grocery store signage as a guide to correct grammar. 
You are correct that in both cases it should have been fewer, not less.
IIRC (and how I use them):
Fewer is for units, less is for amount.
There is less water, but fewer water molecules.
There is less sand, but fewer stones.
There is less intelligence in my postings and I’ve had fewer intellingent posts.
There are fewer magzines and stores with appropriate English on their signs and I people care less. 
PC
I agree, but the “crops” and “resources” example are tricky. Clearly if the US produced wheat, barley and canola last year and only wheat and barley this year, the US has produced fewer crops. If the US produces 10 units of wheat last year and 9 this year it has produced less wheat.
But if the US has produced its various crops this year with one more unit of land, one fewer workers and one fewer units of dung, has it produced its output with fewer resources or with less resources? It’s got to be less, since the “quantity” resources refers both to physical quantities and prices.
So it’s acceptable to say “less resources” and “less crops”, although it would be nice to say “less resources by value” or “fewer dollars’ worth of crops”.
Don’t worry. You are remembering the rules correctly, and the magazine and express line sign have got it wrong. Just don’t expect anyone to thank you for pointing this out!
Thanks, all. I guess language is just becoming less precise or people are becoming lazier. I wasn’t surprised by the supermarket example but I was by the magazine article, which, BTW, was referring to more crops on the same amount of land.
Bob
Britain seems to be notorious for bad grammar and punctuation on public signs (I’ve had to apologise to American tourists for errors on the London Underground ticker signs before now). However some, but not all, the supermarkets here do use “10 items or fewer” above the checkouts. Somehow it always looks a bit pedantic to me in that context, even though I know it’s correct.
Yep. “Fewer” is for things you can count. “Less” is for things you can’t (or would be unlikely to) count.
Fewer rocks, but less sand.
Fewer cookies, but less ice cream.
Fewer victims, but less blood.
That sort of thing.
Language is constantly in a state of flux. What is accepted as correct today wasn’t considered correct 100 years ago, and likely won’t be correct in 100 years time.
“fewer” for discrete entities, “less” for indiscrete". Period.
I have fewer dollars, but less money.
The grogrey sign is wrong, the ad is correct - “resources” is indiscrete - you are not even told WHAT resources, so you could you know how to count them? Sunlight? Nitrogen? Water? Tons of seed? What “resources” are they talking about. Until you know that, you can’t nail them on usage.