On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 9:16:59 PM UTC-4, art...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

A self-powered swimmer? Online sources say one can approach burning a Calorie per meter depending on mass, stroke efficiency, and speed. (One thing I remember from one of Randall Munroe's "What if"s is that a running human will be faster than a swimming human, even if the swimmer were wearing swim fins, even if the runner were also wearing swim fins.) That 50m swim would take the calories in about 120ml of Coke. You've heard of the humorous exercise of "12 ounce diminishing curls" which refers to lifting a bottle of beer? Alas, that 120 cubic centimeters of Coke is not going to diminish our pool very quickly, even if we work out a way for it to be taken from the length rather than the depth. (Of course, most of that volume is just water holding the sugar and coloring in solution, but we don't want to think about intake and outflow while our swimmer is in the pool.)

--
-Jack

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:43:33 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

>And aren't Canadian Gridiron fields a different size to those in the
>USA?????

Yup - 110 yards long (center stripe is the 55 yard line) - can't
remember how much wider but about 5-10 yards. Several American
receivers interviewed on TV say they love the wider field for those
extra long sideline catches.

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 4/4/2023 12:52 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> 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?)

He thinks that because he's a Southerner.... *rimshot*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <clln2i1noek614ted4nlcgughftamnb56n@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>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?)

Well, FL, below Jacksonville, is not the South...
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

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

For the good teams they generally are. I'm a Philadelphia Flyers fan,
and they used to regularly sell out games. They've been pretty bad
for a while now, so a sell-out is no longer guaranteed, but I've heard
that when they play the Rangers, New York fans will travel to Philly
because it's easier to get tickets.

>idea, though as a Southerner, Hockey is kind of an imaginary sport).

I was on vacation in the Outer Banks the year the Carolina Hurricanes
ultimately won the Stanley Cup. I went to a bar and asked if they
could put on a game from late in the playoffs (might have been the
finals, I forget) and they not only didn't know what channel hockey
would be on, no one in the bar even knew Carolina had a team.

-- Bob

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

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 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.
>
You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
more steeply.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

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 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.
>>
>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>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:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>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.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

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:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>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.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

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>,
>>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
>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.
>>>>>
>>>>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>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.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 4/4/2023 7:43 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> 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.
>
Gotta get one in Mississippi or Alabama.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> 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 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.
>>
> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
> more steeply.
>
That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> 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 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.
>>>
>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>> more steeply.
>>
>That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.

It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
increasing seating capacity.

On 2023-04-04, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> 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.
>>
> Gotta get one in Mississippi or Alabama.

Wasn't there an NHL team in Atlanta, Georgia?

ChatGPT responds:
Yes, there was an NHL team in Atlanta, Georgia. The Atlanta Thrashers
were a professional ice hockey team that played in the NHL from 1999 to
2011. The team was based at the Philips Arena in downtown Atlanta and
was originally part of the expansion of the NHL in the late 1990s. The
Thrashers were the second NHL team to be based in Atlanta, with the
first being the Atlanta Flames, who played in the city from 1972 to 1980
before relocating to Calgary and becoming the Calgary Flames.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

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".
> >
> > pt
> No-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.

pt

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:
> > 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".
> > >
> > > pt
> > No-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.

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

In article <ab363948-c895-4128-ba96-44c9728458acn@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>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:
>> > 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".
>> > >
>> > > pt
>> > No-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.
>
>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

RMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM:
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

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>,
>>> 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 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.
>>>>
>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>> more steeply.
>>>
>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>
> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
> increasing seating capacity.

How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/4/2023 10:37 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> 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>,
>>> 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
>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>> 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.

The AT&T Center in San Antonio is like that. I refuse to attend events
there unless it's just floor/walking around.

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>,
>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>> more steeply.
>>>>
>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>
>> 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 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 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>,
>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>
>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
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.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

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.