The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper', 'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in
metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
In article <74011617-b4bc-4c7d-816a-10993edfdb35n@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in
metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
(Hal Heydt)
It all brings to mind the irritation of badly done measurement
conversions. Two specific ones come to mind...
A good many years ago, some US VIP visited South Korea. The
newspaper account stated that the pres was kept back "at least 331
feet" from the arriving plane. It is clear what the original
dispatch said and that some idiot at the newspaper got out a
calculator and looked up the conversion factor. If the article
had used "100 yards" it would have been much better.
The other was a small swimming pool in a large hotel atrium.
Along the edges of the pool were the usual depth marking for each
change of 6 inches. Right next to those labels were ones giving
the depth in centimeters...to two decimal places. Again, using a
calculator for precision leading to gross inaccuracy. Please tell
me how someone is going to measure the depth of a swimming pool
to the nearest 0.1mm...
In article <74011617-b4bc-4c7d-816a-10993edfdb35n@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in
metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
(Hal Heydt)
It all brings to mind the irritation of badly done measurement
conversions. Two specific ones come to mind...
A good many years ago, some US VIP visited South Korea. The
newspaper account stated that the pres was kept back "at least 331
feet" from the arriving plane. It is clear what the original
dispatch said and that some idiot at the newspaper got out a
calculator and looked up the conversion factor. If the article
had used "100 yards" it would have been much better.
The other was a small swimming pool in a large hotel atrium.
Along the edges of the pool were the usual depth marking for each
change of 6 inches. Right next to those labels were ones giving
the depth in centimeters...to two decimal places. Again, using a
calculator for precision leading to gross inaccuracy. Please tell
me how someone is going to measure the depth of a swimming pool
to the nearest 0.1mm...
pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:17:09 AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:will be asking in Fermi Questions, an event in the Science Olympiad in which students have to give order of magnitude answers.
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long
time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
I think if you tried to line them up, they would curl up in a ball which would alter the measurements somewhat. However "How many armadillos would you need to line up end to end to equal the length of the average asteroid" is the kind of question I
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long
time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't hit us,
and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
---
He goes on to include two photos of armadillos, and references two
other meteors which journalists described as "the Corgi-sized meteor
that weighed as much as four baby elephants",
and "asteroid 2023 CX1, twice the size of a super bowl trophy,
which impacted near Normandy, France".
pt
On 28/03/2023 04:05, Jack Bohn wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
Not all countries that use the metric are sportsball-of-that-sort-centric.
How many Aussie Rules ovals is it? Lengthwise or crosswise?
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC+11, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
On 28/03/2023 04:05, Jack Bohn wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:Not all countries that use the metric are sportsball-of-that-sort-centric. >>
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things inIf I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper', >>>
How many Aussie Rules ovals is it? Lengthwise or crosswise?
You think we limit ourselves to 1 size of oval for AFL?
In article <74011617-b4bc-4c7d...@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in >metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."(Hal Heydt)
It all brings to mind the irritation of badly done measurement
conversions. Two specific ones come to mind...
A good many years ago, some US VIP visited South Korea. The
newspaper account stated that the pres was kept back "at least 331
feet" from the arriving plane. It is clear what the original
dispatch said and that some idiot at the newspaper got out a
calculator and looked up the conversion factor. If the article
had used "100 yards" it would have been much better.
The other was a small swimming pool in a large hotel atrium.
Along the edges of the pool were the usual depth marking for each
change of 6 inches. Right next to those labels were ones giving
the depth in centimeters...to two decimal places. Again, using a
calculator for precision leading to gross inaccuracy. Please tell
me how someone is going to measure the depth of a swimming pool
to the nearest 0.1mm...
In article <74011617-b4bc-4c7d...@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in >metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."(Hal Heydt)
It all brings to mind the irritation of badly done measurement
conversions. Two specific ones come to mind...
A good many years ago, some US VIP visited South Korea. The
newspaper account stated that the pres was kept back "at least 331
feet" from the arriving plane. It is clear what the original
dispatch said and that some idiot at the newspaper got out a
calculator and looked up the conversion factor. If the article
had used "100 yards" it would have been much better.
The other was a small swimming pool in a large hotel atrium.
Along the edges of the pool were the usual depth marking for each
change of 6 inches. Right next to those labels were ones giving
the depth in centimeters...to two decimal places. Again, using a
calculator for precision leading to gross inaccuracy. Please tell
me how someone is going to measure the depth of a swimming pool
to the nearest 0.1mm...
On 28/03/2023 05:42, art...@yahoo.com wrote:will be asking in Fermi Questions, an event in the Science Olympiad in which students have to give order of magnitude answers.
On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:17:09 AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper', >> 'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long >> time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
I think if you tried to line them up, they would curl up in a ball which would alter the measurements somewhat. However "How many armadillos would you need to line up end to end to equal the length of the average asteroid" is the kind of question I
That reminds me, "If all the dolly-birds in Chelsea were laid
end-to-end, nobody would be in the least bit surprised".
On 28/03/2023 22:09, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC+11, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: >>> On 28/03/2023 04:05, Jack Bohn wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:Not all countries that use the metric are
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a
MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in
metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
sportsball-of-that-sort-centric.
How many Aussie Rules ovals is it? Lengthwise or crosswise?
You think we limit ourselves to 1 size of oval for AFL?
I know we don't, I was waiting for that...
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 1:49:09 AM UTC-4, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:will be asking in Fermi Questions, an event in the Science Olympiad in which students have to give order of magnitude answers.
On 28/03/2023 05:42, art...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:17:09 AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper', >>>> 'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long >>>> time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
I think if you tried to line them up, they would curl up in a ball which would alter the measurements somewhat. However "How many armadillos would you need to line up end to end to equal the length of the average asteroid" is the kind of question I
That reminds me, "If all the dolly-birds in Chelsea were laid
end-to-end, nobody would be in the least bit surprised".
Perhaps the original is Dorothy Parker's "“If all the girls attending
[the Yale prom] were laid end to end, I wouldn't be at all surprised.”
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long
time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
---
He goes on to include two photos of armadillos, and references
two other meteors which journalists described as "the
Corgi-sized meteor that weighed as much as four baby elephants",
and "asteroid 2023 CX1, twice the size of a super bowl trophy,
which impacted near Normandy, France".
pt
On 3/28/2023 5:18 AM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
On 28/03/2023 22:09, Hamish Laws wrote:Don't you size them by kangaroo hops? So if you want a bigger oval you scare the 'roo more?
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC+11, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: >>>> On 28/03/2023 04:05, Jack Bohn wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:Not all countries that use the metric are
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in >>>>>> comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a
MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in
metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
sportsball-of-that-sort-centric.
How many Aussie Rules ovals is it? Lengthwise or crosswise?
You think we limit ourselves to 1 size of oval for AFL?
I know we don't, I was waiting for that...
On 28/03/2023 22:09, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC+11, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: >>> On 28/03/2023 04:05, Jack Bohn wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:Not all countries that use the metric are
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a
MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in
metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
sportsball-of-that-sort-centric.
How many Aussie Rules ovals is it? Lengthwise or crosswise?
You think we limit ourselves to 1 size of oval for AFL?
I know we don't, I was waiting for that...
Cheers,
Gary B-) (In deepest, darkest Mentone, Victoria, Australia. :-) )
On 29/03/23 01:18, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
On 28/03/2023 22:09, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC+11, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: >>> On 28/03/2023 04:05, Jack Bohn wrote:
pete...@gmail.com wrote:Not all countries that use the metric are
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in >>>>> comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a
MiniCooper',
If I ever say "as long as 4 football fields," I follow it with "(in >>>> metric, 3.4 soccer pitches)."
sportsball-of-that-sort-centric.
How many Aussie Rules ovals is it? Lengthwise or crosswise?
You think we limit ourselves to 1 size of oval for AFL?
I know we don't, I was waiting for that...
Cheers,A few years ago, Aussie Rules was broadcast on NZ TV for only a season
Gary B-) (In deepest, darkest Mentone, Victoria,
Australia. :-) )
or two and I enjoyed it. I hadn't considered the possibility that fields would have different sizes. My second biggest gripe with many popular
sports is that professionalism and time have increased player fitness
and ability to the extent that the game itself is ruined because the
playing areas are now too small. Basketball courts are now far too small
and it was never intended for the ball to be thrown or placed downwards through the net. Rugby Union was far more entertaining when sixteen fat forwards were grouped in one spot and had to waddle about to follow play whilst the slimmer athletic backs threw the ball about and tried to
outrun or sidestep each other with plenty of room to do so. Is this a
factor in Aussie Rules yet?
I've pondered if basketball could be improved by either raising the net to 15
feet (and making it slightly wider), or lowering it to 8 feet.
Either would greatly increase the pool of people who could compete in the top echelon, since being freakishly tall would no longer be such an advantage.
No-one has mentioned Olympic swimming pools (2,500 m^3) or,
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:03:45 +1300, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
My second biggest gripe with many popular
sports is that professionalism and time have increased player fitness
and ability to the extent that the game itself is ruined because the >>playing areas are now too small.
That's a common complaint about the NHL. A lot of fans think they
should switch to Olympic sized rinks because modern players are
faster. Having more ice area available might also lead to more
offense because it would be harder for defenses to shut down the other
team by clogging up the neutral zone.
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
-- Bob
My second biggest gripe with many popular
sports is that professionalism and time have increased player fitness
and ability to the extent that the game itself is ruined because the
playing areas are now too small.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:03:45 +1300, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
My second biggest gripe with many popular
sports is that professionalism and time have increased player fitness
and ability to the extent that the game itself is ruined because the
playing areas are now too small.
That's a common complaint about the NHL. A lot of fans think they
should switch to Olympic sized rinks because modern players are
faster. Having more ice area available might also lead to more
offense because it would be harder for defenses to shut down the other
team by clogging up the neutral zone.
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:40:47 AM UTC-4, David Duffy wrote:
No-one has mentioned Olympic swimming pools (2,500 m^3) or,My science olympiad competitors had to figure out how many calories an olympic swimming pool full of Coke would have.
It is about a billion.
And aren't Canadian Gridiron fields a different size to those in the
USA?????
NHL games are consistently sold-out? (Honest question -- I have no
idea, though as a Southerner, Hockey is kind of an imaginary sport).
On 30 Mar 2023 17:13:23 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
NHL games are consistently sold-out? (Honest question -- I have no
idea, though as a Southerner, Hockey is kind of an imaginary sport).
That coupled by little restriction on scalpers is why it can often
cost $1000+ for good seats at the rink.
Given the local team has been mathematically out of the playoffs for
at least 6 weeks the scalpers are crying because they're losing money.
Aw shucks.
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
On 30 Mar 2023 17:13:23 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
NHL games are consistently sold-out? (Honest question -- I have no
idea, though as a Southerner, Hockey is kind of an imaginary sport).
That coupled by little restriction on scalpers is why it can often
cost $1000+ for good seats at the rink.
Given the local team has been mathematically out of the playoffs for
at least 6 weeks the scalpers are crying because they're losing money.
Aw shucks.
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a >Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
NHL games are consistently sold-out? (Honest question -- I have no
idea, though as a Southerner, Hockey is kind of an imaginary sport).
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? How
long would it take to recover the construction costs?
In article <IRWWL.1269181$gGD7.472946@fx11.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? How
long would it take to recover the construction costs?
It might but it's outside my expertise. What I do know is steeper
raking increases the chance of falls, particularly if there are
no railings.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <IRWWL.1269181$gGD7.472946@fx11.iad>,have to remove
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would
You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seatsthe first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>>hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>>relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? How
long would it take to recover the construction costs?
It might but it's outside my expertise. What I do know is steeper
raking increases the chance of falls, particularly if there are
no railings.
Levi stadium has severely raked seating. Personally, I hate it
and would have preferred they stay at Candlestick where it felt
much less claustrophobic.
On 2023-04-04, Ted Nolan <tednolan> <ted@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a
Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
Raleigh, NC, and Nashville, TN, also have NHL teams.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a >>Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
Gotta get one in Mississippi or Alabama.(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a
Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
Raleigh, NC, and Nashville, TN, also have NHL teams.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 1:34:51 PM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:40:47 AM UTC-4, David Duffy wrote:things in
pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of
me for a longcomparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a >MiniCooper',
'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to
55 sq km.time (yes, there are better things to rage at).No-one has mentioned Olympic swimming pools (2,500 m^3) or,
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
---
He goes on to include two photos of armadillos, and references
two other meteors which journalists described as "the
Corgi-sized meteor that weighed as much as four baby elephants",
and "asteroid 2023 CX1, twice the size of a super bowl trophy,
which impacted near Normandy, France".
pt
around here, "sydharb, also called a Sydney Harbour,
approximately 500 gigalitres".
I see that number quoted online, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
A gigalitre is a cubic kilometer. The area of Sydney harbor is
To get 500 km^3 of water into it, it would have to be 9 km deep from
shore to shore.
Looking up the numbers, the deepest part of the harbor is 47m. I
suggest the number cited is off by a factor of 1000.
The problem here is that '500 billion liters' doesn't
really relate to the scale. If the source said '500 cubic kilometers'
someone would sooner have noticed the absurdity.
Yuck. I was mistaken. A cubic kilometer is 10^12 liters. Its at times
like this that I wish a usenet article could be deleted.
pt
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:40:47 AM UTC-4, David Duffy wrote:
pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper', 'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33 nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
---
He goes on to include two photos of armadillos, and references
two other meteors which journalists described as "the
Corgi-sized meteor that weighed as much as four baby elephants",
and "asteroid 2023 CX1, twice the size of a super bowl trophy,
which impacted near Normandy, France".
ptNo-one has mentioned Olympic swimming pools (2,500 m^3) or,
around here, "sydharb, also called a Sydney Harbour,
approximately 500 gigalitres".
I see that number quoted online, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
A gigalitre is a cubic kilometer. The area of Sydney harbor is 55 sq km.
To get 500 km^3 of water into it, it would have to be 9 km deep from
shore to shore.
Looking up the numbers, the deepest part of the harbor is 47m. I
suggest the number cited is off by a factor of 1000.
The problem here is that '500 billion liters' doesn't
really relate to the scale. If the source said '500 cubic kilometers' someone would sooner have noticed the absurdity.
pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper', 'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
---
He goes on to include two photos of armadillos, and references
two other meteors which journalists described as "the
Corgi-sized meteor that weighed as much as four baby elephants",
and "asteroid 2023 CX1, twice the size of a super bowl trophy,
which impacted near Normandy, France".
ptNo-one has mentioned Olympic swimming pools (2,500 m^3) or,
around here, "sydharb, also called a Sydney Harbour,
approximately 500 gigalitres".
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus increasing seating capacity.
In article <p3XWL.1269183$gGD7.680288@fx11.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <IRWWL.1269181$gGD7.472946@fx11.iad>,have to remove
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would
You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seatsthe first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? How
long would it take to recover the construction costs?
It might but it's outside my expertise. What I do know is steeper
raking increases the chance of falls, particularly if there are
no railings.
Levi stadium has severely raked seating. Personally, I hate it
and would have preferred they stay at Candlestick where it felt
much less claustrophobic.
There is a terrifying theatre in Stratford Ontario that combines
steep raking, extremely narrow aisles and a total lack of railings.
I was very aware that if I slipped, I would not stop bouncing until
I hit the stage.
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
increasing seating capacity.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
increasing seating capacity.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:40:47 AM UTC-4, David Duffy wrote:
pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things inNo-one has mentioned Olympic swimming pools (2,500 m^3) or,
comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper', >>> 'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long >>> time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
The author of this article clearly feels the same:
---
https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
"Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
"Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
---
He goes on to include two photos of armadillos, and references
two other meteors which journalists described as "the
Corgi-sized meteor that weighed as much as four baby elephants",
and "asteroid 2023 CX1, twice the size of a super bowl trophy,
which impacted near Normandy, France".
pt
around here, "sydharb, also called a Sydney Harbour,
approximately 500 gigalitres".
I see that number quoted online, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
A gigalitre is a cubic kilometer. The area of Sydney harbor is 55 sq km.
To get 500 km^3 of water into it, it would have to be 9 km deep from
shore to shore.
Looking up the numbers, the deepest part of the harbor is 47m. I
suggest the number cited is off by a factor of 1000.
The problem here is that '500 billion liters' doesn't
really relate to the scale. If the source said '500 cubic kilometers'
someone would sooner have noticed the absurdity.
pt
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
On 4/4/2023 4:38 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats
get taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount
for the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
But they still lose seats. The total number of seats available will go down, meaning ticket sales go down, meaning income goes down.
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
increasing seating capacity.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
space available is the same whether stepped or not.
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <IRWWL.1269181$gGD7.472946@fx11.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? How
long would it take to recover the construction costs?
It might but it's outside my expertise. What I do know is steeper
raking increases the chance of falls, particularly if there are
no railings.
Levi stadium has severely raked seating. Personally, I hate it
and would have preferred they stay at Candlestick where it felt
much less claustrophobic.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
increasing seating capacity.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
space available is the same whether stepped or not.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus >>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have >>>>>>>>>>> to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a >>>>>>>>> couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a
sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
space available is the same whether stepped or not.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
On 6/04/23 09:28, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus >>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have >>>>>>>>>>>> to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a >>>>>>>>>> couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a >>>>>>>>>> sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal >>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
The Lowpotenuse?
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get >taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get >>taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for >>the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly, >specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most >profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.
Likewise, the idea of making the seating steeper in order to add more
seats isn't very feasable because it would require altering the
building itself.
So my original point stands - the NHL won't expand the rink size
because it would cost them a lot of ticket income.
-- Bob
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus >>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
space available is the same whether stepped or not.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
In article <642eba5b.1114609625@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get >>>taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for >>>the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly, >>specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most >>profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.
Likewise, the idea of making the seating steeper in order to add more
seats isn't very feasable because it would require altering the
building itself.
So my original point stands - the NHL won't expand the rink size
because it would cost them a lot of ticket income.
-- Bob
Well, the usual way professional athletics handles this is to con a host
city into building them a new, bigger arena with taxpayer dollars...
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus >>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
space available is the same whether stepped or not.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
You are missing the point:
*_
|
*_
|
*_
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
seats.
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined >>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal >>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus >>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
You are missing the point:
*_
|
*_
|
*_
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
seats.
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped, horizontal surface.
On 6 Apr 2023 at 20:13:21 BST, "Dimensional Traveler"
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined >>>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal >>>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus >>>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall. >>>>>>>>>>>>
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size >>>>> of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
You are missing the point:
*_
|
*_
|
*_
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
seats.
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
horizontal surface.
Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing.
Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and
you can squeeze them tighter.
In article <6425bcb4.525400109@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothed...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:03:45 +1300, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
My second biggest gripe with many popular
sports is that professionalism and time have increased player fitness >>and ability to the extent that the game itself is ruined because the >>playing areas are now too small.
That's a common complaint about the NHL. A lot of fans think they
should switch to Olympic sized rinks because modern players are
faster. Having more ice area available might also lead to more
offense because it would be harder for defenses to shut down the other >team by clogging up the neutral zone.
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
-- Bob
NHL games are consistently sold-out? (Honest question -- I have no
idea, though as a Southerner, Hockey is kind of an imaginary sport).
--
In article <IRWWL.1269181$gGD7....@fx11.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothed...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
more steeply.
Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? HowIt might but it's outside my expertise. What I do know is steeper
long would it take to recover the construction costs?
raking increases the chance of falls, particularly if there are
no railings.
--
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly, specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.
On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?
You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
price bumpt up, right?
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get >>> taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for >>> the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.
Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 21:44:25 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?
You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
price bumpt up, right?
Which in no way changes the fact that they'd still lose a couple
hundred high-priced seats.
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get >>>> taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for >>>> the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.
Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.
OK, whatever, you're obviously just arguing to hear yourself argue at
this point. If you want to believe that removing hundreds of
high-priced seats from an arena would not affect ticket income in any
way, go ahead.
On 6 Apr 2023 20:42:30 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
=20=20=20
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
You are missing the point:
=20
*_
|
*_
|
*_
=20
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
=20
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
seats.
=20
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
horizontal surface.
Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing. >>Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and >>you can squeeze them tighter.
He's got a bee in his bonnet and can't hear anything else.
On 6 Apr 2023 at 20:13:21 BST, "Dimensional Traveler"
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined >>>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal >>>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus >>>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in. >>>>>>>>>
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall. >>>>>>>>>>>>
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size >>>>> of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
You are missing the point:
*_
|
*_
|
*_
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
seats.
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
horizontal surface.
Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing.
Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and
you can squeeze them tighter.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 21:44:25 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?
You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
price bumpt up, right?
Which in no way changes the fact that they'd still lose a couple
hundred high-priced seats.
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get >>>> taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for >>>> the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.
Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.
OK, whatever, you're obviously just arguing to hear yourself argue at
this point. If you want to believe that removing hundreds of
high-priced seats from an arena would not affect ticket income in any
way, go ahead.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On 6 Apr 2023 20:42:30 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
=20=20You are missing the point:
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats. >>>>>=20
=20
*_
|
*_
|
*_
=20
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
=20
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/ >>>>> seats.
=20
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped, >>>> horizontal surface.
Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing. >>>Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and >>>you can squeeze them tighter.
He's got a bee in his bonnet and can't hear anything else.
If they couldn't change the rake, they'll likely just use narrower
seats to pack more into the same horizontal space anyway, or up the
prices across the board to accomodate any lost revenue, or add a row
along the refreshments concourse, et alia.
On 6 Apr 2023 20:42:30 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
On 6 Apr 2023 at 20:13:21 BST, "Dimensional Traveler"
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler_
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined >>>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal >>>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
Bice <eichlertwothed...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats >>>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be >>>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
increasing seating capacity.
How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size >>>>> of the seats.
So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical >>>>> size of the seats.
But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse. >>>>
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
___________
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
You are missing the point:
*_
|
*_
|
*_
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/ >>> seats.
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
horizontal surface.
Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing. >Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and >you can squeeze them tighter.He's got a bee in his bonnet and can't hear anything else.
On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 14:06:39 GMT,
eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net (Bice) wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 21:44:25 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove >>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket >>>>>>>> income.
You need to think that last statement through...
In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple >>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that >>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
-- Bob
Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
What?
Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?
You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
price bumpt up, right?
Which in no way changes the fact that they'd still lose a couple
hundred high-priced seats.
Well, let's see:
before change, say, 600 high-priced seats
100 seats removed
100 seats repriced to high-priced
600 high-priced seats still exist
Nope, they won't, in the only sense that matters.
Physically, of course, the seats would be gone. But that's not the
issue here.
You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get >>>>> taken out...
...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for >>>>> the seats that become the new front row?
Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly, >>>> specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the >>>> 200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.
Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.
OK, whatever, you're obviously just arguing to hear yourself argue at
this point. If you want to believe that removing hundreds of
high-priced seats from an arena would not affect ticket income in any
way, go ahead.
That's a different assertion. But (using the example above) adding
another 100 seats way up in the clouds would produce the exact same
number of seats, and the pricing adjustments don't have to stop with
the highest-cost seats.
If they are physically identical, it might even be possible to just
/move/ the 100 high-priced seats to the uppermost level and reprice
them accordingly. Then it wouldn't just be the same number of seats,
but the very same seats. And how is that going to reduce income?
In article <94XXL.1959030$iU59.1...@fx14.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On 6 Apr 2023 20:42:30 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh >><jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
=20=20You are missing the point:
Which one of those three has the most space available for seats. >>>>>=20
=20
*_
|
*_
|
*_
=20
vs
_
|
_
|
_
|
_
=20
producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/ >>>>> seats.
=20
The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between >>>>> rows. Or both.
Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You >>>> can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped, >>>> horizontal surface.
Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing. >>>Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and >>>you can squeeze them tighter.
He's got a bee in his bonnet and can't hear anything else.
If they couldn't change the rake, they'll likely just use narrowerOr they could hire smaller players to solve the original problem of making the play surface proportions larger.
seats to pack more into the same horizontal space anyway, or up the
prices across the board to accomodate any lost revenue, or add a row
along the refreshments concourse, et alia.
Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly, specifically the Flyers layouts:
https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a >>Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
On 4 Apr 2023 12:13:55 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a >>>Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
I did specifically use plural since the Florida Panthers play in an
outer suburb of Miami while the Tampa Bay Lightning.....
And while I may be on the west coast of Canada, I have been to Miami
(Miami and Vancouver are probably the two North American major cities >furthest apart) so you can reasonably assume I know where
Jacksonville, Orlando and Miami are.
In article <iur33i9jdcst45oijrltlrnubp3hib1d3h@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2023 12:13:55 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) >>wrote:
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a >>>>Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
I did specifically use plural since the Florida Panthers play in an
outer suburb of Miami while the Tampa Bay Lightning.....
And while I may be on the west coast of Canada, I have been to Miami
(Miami and Vancouver are probably the two North American major cities >>furthest apart) so you can reasonably assume I know where
Jacksonville, Orlando and Miami are.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about here, if we are arguing.
My point was that areas of Florida south of Jacksonville are not
in "The South" as that part of FL has a different culture & history.
Both Miami & Tampa are not "Southern" cities.
On 9 Apr 2023 03:38:01 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:
In article <iur33i9jdcst45oijrltlrnubp3hib1d3h@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2023 12:13:55 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) >>>wrote:
(Besides there are NHL teams in Florida so why do you think 'being a >>>>>Southerner' gets you off the hook?)
Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
I did specifically use plural since the Florida Panthers play in an
outer suburb of Miami while the Tampa Bay Lightning.....
And while I may be on the west coast of Canada, I have been to Miami >>>(Miami and Vancouver are probably the two North American major cities >>>furthest apart) so you can reasonably assume I know where
Jacksonville, Orlando and Miami are.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about here, if we are arguing.
My point was that areas of Florida south of Jacksonville are not
in "The South" as that part of FL has a different culture & history.
Both Miami & Tampa are not "Southern" cities.
More (1) reminiscing and (2) a Canadian getting snarky about somebody
who thinks he should know nothing at all about the US south.
For what it's worth, my late wife's cousin is now retired but spent
20+ years in Atlanta with Coco-Cola (before retirement he was a
commodities buyer for them) and his 3 youngest children were born
there. I'm pretty sure he's still there. I've been there for a
corporate course but didn't see him there. Had a darned good time in
Atlanta but was somewhat intimidated by the airport.
Had a darned good time in
Atlanta but was somewhat intimidated by the airport.
Among the things The Horny Goat wrote:
Had a darned good time in
Atlanta but was somewhat intimidated by the airport.
You've heard the joke that when you die and go to your final destination, they route you through Atlanta?
In my flying days I got to the point where I kinda liked ATL. Of course
I never actually started or ended there, as a transfer point it was quite >nice and I got to the point where I had favorite shops. There was even
a decent bookstore where I picked up a fairly niche book listing and reviewing >all of (at that time) the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melody shorts.
On 13 Apr 2023 12:21:53 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In my flying days I got to the point where I kinda liked ATL. Of courseBlue cover? I managed to pick that up in the nineties in one of the
I never actually started or ended there, as a transfer point it was quite >nice and I got to the point where I had favorite shops. There was even
a decent bookstore where I picked up a fairly niche book listing and reviewing
all of (at that time) the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melody shorts.
London bookshops with a US imports section.
It was most likely "The Book Inn" on Charing Cross Road, which
incorporated "The Fantasy Inn" below ground (I got my copy of "The
World is Round" there). The staircase down had a sign "Please Mind
Your Head", with "the scanners are about" in smaller letters below.
It eventually burnt down <sniff>.
On 13 Apr 2023 12:21:53 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In my flying days I got to the point where I kinda liked ATL. Of course
I never actually started or ended there, as a transfer point it was quite >>nice and I got to the point where I had favorite shops. There was even
a decent bookstore where I picked up a fairly niche book listing and reviewing
all of (at that time) the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melody shorts.
Blue cover? I managed to pick that up in the nineties in one of the
London bookshops with a US imports section.
It was most likely "The Book Inn" on Charing Cross Road, which
incorporated "The Fantasy Inn" below ground (I got my copy of "The
World is Round" there). The staircase down had a sign "Please Mind
Your Head", with "the scanners are about" in smaller letters below.
It eventually burnt down <sniff>.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:05:21?AM UTC-4, Jerry Brown wrote:
On 13 Apr 2023 12:21:53 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In my flying days I got to the point where I kinda liked ATL. Of courseBlue cover? I managed to pick that up in the nineties in one of the
I never actually started or ended there, as a transfer point it was quite >> >nice and I got to the point where I had favorite shops. There was even
a decent bookstore where I picked up a fairly niche book listing and reviewing
all of (at that time) the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melody shorts.
London bookshops with a US imports section.
It was most likely "The Book Inn" on Charing Cross Road, which
incorporated "The Fantasy Inn" below ground (I got my copy of "The
World is Round" there). The staircase down had a sign "Please Mind
Your Head", with "the scanners are about" in smaller letters below.
It eventually burnt down <sniff>.
That brings back memories of Dark They Were, And Golden Eyed, just
off Soho Square, in the. 70s.
On 13 Apr 2023 12:21:53 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
It was most likely "The Book Inn" on Charing Cross Road, which
incorporated "The Fantasy Inn" below ground (I got my copy of "The
World is Round" there). The staircase down had a sign "Please Mind
Your Head", with "the scanners are about" in smaller letters below.
It eventually burnt down <sniff>.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:58:16 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:05:21?AM UTC-4, Jerry Brown wrote:
On 13 Apr 2023 12:21:53 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In my flying days I got to the point where I kinda liked ATL. Of course >> >I never actually started or ended there, as a transfer point it was quite >> >nice and I got to the point where I had favorite shops. There was evenBlue cover? I managed to pick that up in the nineties in one of the
a decent bookstore where I picked up a fairly niche book listing and reviewing
all of (at that time) the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melody shorts.
London bookshops with a US imports section.
It was most likely "The Book Inn" on Charing Cross Road, which
incorporated "The Fantasy Inn" below ground (I got my copy of "The
World is Round" there). The staircase down had a sign "Please Mind
Your Head", with "the scanners are about" in smaller letters below.
It eventually burnt down <sniff>.
That brings back memories of Dark They Were, And Golden Eyed, justIn my mid-teens I used to go there every Saturday with like-minded
off Soho Square, in the. 70s.
school mates. I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it lasted far less
time that I remembered.
Forbidden Planet is still going strong, but turned from books to media&comics-centric a long time ago.
Back in the 80s I remember
chatting with one of the founders Mike Lake while I was waiting in the
queue for a signing and he said that they lost money on such events
and only did them so they could get their own collections signed
before the public were let in. Those were the days!
I visited the London FP last weekend and was not impressed.
On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 07:50:48 UTC+1, Jerry Brown wrote:
I visited the London FP last weekend and was not impressed.
In Glasgow I think most of their book range is "character"
in the sense of Star Trek and Star Wars and Batman,
but there is a fair range of "real" science fiction at one
of the last standing pure-ish bookselling chains,
Waterstones. Or you could try W. H. Smith, which was
somewhat significant in the history of paperback books...
probably not in that particular location.
I was able to get 95% of Bob Shaw's fiction for my recent
complete reread (For some reason only "Other Days, Other Eyes" wasn't >available but I had an old pb of that)
I nominate this sub thread for The Most Pointless Argument on
Rasfw this Year Award.
Just drop it, both of you. You're making yourselves look stupid.
By the time I finally found genre bookstores, the Internet had basically
made them moot.
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
Among the things The Horny Goat wrote:
Had a darned good time in
Atlanta but was somewhat intimidated by the airport.
You've heard the joke that when you die and go to your final destination, they route you through Atlanta?
Unless of course you've been naughty, in which case that airport *is*
your final destination...
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:02:46 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
Among the things The Horny Goat wrote:
Had a darned good time in
Atlanta but was somewhat intimidated by the airport.
You've heard the joke that when you die and go to your final destination, they route you through Atlanta?
Unless of course you've been naughty, in which case that airport *is*
your final destination...
Actually I hadn't but then I'm in Vancouver which is probably the
North American city over a million population furthest from Atlanta.
We used to think of SeaTac (Seattle) and LAX in the same terms.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 83:03:55 |
| Calls: | 6,762 |
| Files: | 12,289 |
| Messages: | 5,378,210 |