The "tiny" store

On 2014-04-29 14:14:19 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2014042821221729662-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-04-29 04:13:43 +0000, android said:

Le Snip

I live in a town with about half a million. ;-/

That's nice.
I find myself fortunate to live 13 miles from a town of about 30,000,
with a few larger towns within 45-90 minutes drive. However, if I ever
feel like pounding my head with real crowds and all the irritation that
brings, I have the Bay Area 3+ hours to the North, and the insufferable
L.A. Basin 4+ hours to the South.

Then there's the Northeast Corridor. I live 22 miles from a town with a
population of 1.2 million, 12 miles from a town with a population of
700,000, 2.5 hours from New York City population 20 million, and 1.5
hours from Boston, population 4.5 million, and then closer than either
are New Haven population 800,000, Providence population 1.6 million,
Worcester population 1 million, and on it goes.

Each of us has our own preference of where to live. Personally, I enjoy
living in a less densely populated area without feeling in anyway
deprived. I have lived in a few major metropolitan areas, including
back East and enjoyed some aspects of that, if only the people weren't
there. Even when I lived back East, I preferred the time I lived up in
the Adirondacks near Inlet, NY (that was in 1973) to living in the city.

I have lived in San Luis Obispo County, with a population of 270,000
since 1986. That is in California, a State of 39 million, most packed
into the major metropolitan areas of the Bay Area, SoCal, and
Sacramento.
I prefer to have an uncrowded Pacific coast, Big Sur, and the National
parks of the Sierras close at hand, and still not lack for anything.
Occasionally I get up to the Bay Area, and less occasionally (the last
time 5 years ago) I find myself in L.A. and its surrounds.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Sandman:
That was my entire post, was it?

Why do you want the entire post ? Does it change what you've said.

Indeed it does. The post contained the number "20", but that wasn't the
total number of cameras in the store I counted. Just read the post again,
and you'll see.

You saiud you're rounding you estimate up to 20. why do we need to
go back in time to see what you said before ?

Not back in time, back to that post. 20 was just *a* number, not the *only*
number. Read the post again and you'll see (??).

Sandman:
(see, I can cut away huge parts of your post as well and pretend
you said something else)

I don;t need to do that.

So why did you do it?

Sandman:
What is wrong with you? When did I refer to Cyberphoto as a tiny
store?

Well?

Whisky-dave:
So you must have some predefined criteria for saying the word
tiny.

Sandman:
Which isn't based in an actual number.

So how do you base such a thing on colour temperature ?

No. I've already said that it is a combination of both number of cameras
and physical size of the camera department (if it's part of a larger store)
or the store (if it's a camera store).

And no, I don't have a pre-set list of numbers of cameras that correlate to
relative sizes. Sorry.

Whisky-dave:
I don't see a great deal of differnce in size between park
cameras and cyberphoto from the pictures.

Sandman:
I never said there was, so I have no idea why you're making a note
of that.

You said cycperphoto were small or tiny and park cameras were huge.

No I did not.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article 2014042908272764607-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-04-29 14:14:19 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2014042821221729662-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-04-29 04:13:43 +0000, android said:

Le Snip

I live in a town with about half a million. ;-/

That's nice.
I find myself fortunate to live 13 miles from a town of about 30,000,
with a few larger towns within 45-90 minutes drive. However, if I ever
feel like pounding my head with real crowds and all the irritation that
brings, I have the Bay Area 3+ hours to the North, and the insufferable
L.A. Basin 4+ hours to the South.

Then there's the Northeast Corridor. I live 22 miles from a town with a
population of 1.2 million, 12 miles from a town with a population of
700,000, 2.5 hours from New York City population 20 million, and 1.5
hours from Boston, population 4.5 million, and then closer than either
are New Haven population 800,000, Providence population 1.6 million,
Worcester population 1 million, and on it goes.

Each of us has our own preference of where to live. Personally, I enjoy
living in a less densely populated area without feeling in anyway
deprived. I have lived in a few major metropolitan areas, including
back East and enjoyed some aspects of that, if only the people weren't
there. Even when I lived back East, I preferred the time I lived up in
the Adirondacks near Inlet, NY (that was in 1973) to living in the city.

I have lived in San Luis Obispo County, with a population of 270,000
since 1986. That is in California, a State of 39 million, most packed
into the major metropolitan areas of the Bay Area, SoCal, and
Sacramento.
I prefer to have an uncrowded Pacific coast, Big Sur, and the National
parks of the Sierras close at hand, and still not lack for anything.
Occasionally I get up to the Bay Area, and less occasionally (the last
time 5 years ago) I find myself in L.A. and its surrounds.

While this area isn't rural like my parents' house in Florida was (there
you could set up tin cans on pilings and plink away), I'm in a little
island of suburbia surrounded by dairy and tobacco farms. A friend of
mine until recently lived in a 1700s vintage house that still had the
original barn on the property. There's a real hardware store down the
way, the kind which has just about everything you need and there's
usually a cat sleeping on the scale. But I can nip down to B&H or
wherever any time I feel like taking the drive (or ride--frankly I find
a motorcycle to be a more practical vehicle for visiting NYC than a
car--the parking is a lot cheaper and more available).

On 2014.04.29, 00:13 , android wrote:
Thanks for your input. The CIA Fact Book (MC 19 million) and other
statistics can give you all sorts of number but the fact is that Mexico
City is a borderless megapolis that makes London with it's (according to
Dave, Britt I assume) 10 million look tiny compared to it.

Again you have to compare "city", "urban", "metro" and not the urban of
one against city of the other.

There's no doubt MC is significantly larger in population.

--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

There's no doubt MC is significantly larger in population.

And that was my point! ;-p
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

On 2014-05-01 11:03:23 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 21:39:48 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:

Le Snip

There's no doubt MC is significantly larger in population.

Have a play here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_cities

Urban area
London 3rd
MC 18th

I believe that you should reread & reinterpret the table you provided
with regard to *Urban area*.
I read Urban Area for the two cities in question as follows,
particularly with reference to the link provided in your Wikipedia
source above:

From the above table:
London - by population 29th; & UN Agglomeration 30th
Mexico City - by population 10th; & UN Agglomeration 3rd

Detail from the UN column:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ited _Nations)


London - 29th, pop: 8,923,000, Met. area: 1,610 Km²
Mexico City - 4th, pop: 20,142,000, Met. area: 7,815 Km²


Major Agglomerations of the World
10th Mexico city 22.2 million Area: 7,854 km² - Density: 2,826.6 inh./
km²
22nd London with 14 million Area: 5,137.86 km² - Density: 2,724.9 in
h./km²


so not that differnt in terms of density.


--
Regards,

Savageduck