The "tiny" store

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:20:19 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On 25 Apr 2014 16:04:35 GMT, Sandman wrote:


You have made some sort of change that has resulted in your line width
not being constrained to the appropriate 72 characters or so. To read
your lines, one need to scroll across.

Your posts have not been this way in the past, so it's evidently a
change you have made.

Have you tried typing 'o'?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Just for kicks, I went back to Tony's pictures and
counted. His photos aren't very good so it's hard to see, so
there is a margin of error here. But here goes:

So, what's the score?

Olympus: 20 Fujifilm: 5 Nikon: 20 Unlabeled: 30 Counter: 15
Sum: 70

Tony Cooper:
Really? This is what you are going with?

Sandman:
What do you mean by "going with"?

Sorry, but that's an idiom in US English and it's not fair on my
part to use terms that you might not know. I apologize.

It means "Is this what you are going to use?"

I know what the expression means, Andreas, I am wonder what YOU mean by it.
Was the question too hard for you to understand?

Tony Cooper:
What you see in the photos are the cameras that are on the shelf
for display.

Sandman:
Uh, yeah? Those are the ones I can see, you know.

You are somewhat expected to use a little common sense. In what
kind of store would you expect all of the store's inventory to be
visible?

What does that have to do with anything?

Even a grocery store that has several boxes of breakfast
cereal out on the shelves is expected to have more in the storeroom.

Captain Irrelevant has arrived.

Colonial happens to stock some of their inventory in boxes on the
shelves under the display area, but common sense should tell you
that they might have even more in a storeroom.

Yeah? All this text - do you have a point?

What you have counted are the display items. To project that to a
conclusion about inventory is greatly lacking in common sense.

I have not made any conclusion about inventory you illiterate old man. Stop
repeating this.

Tony Cooper:
There is no particular reason to have more than a few cameras of
any model on display.

Sandman:
Why would they have more than one of the same model, even?

You may have noticed, when in the store, that there were several
salesmen behind the counter.

Two.

If two customers were in the store, being handled by two different
salesmen, it's quite likely that both customers might want to see the
same model camera. (Not unit, model.) With only one unit on display,
only one customer at a time can be shown that model.

Yeah, so he waits or listen in on the same salesman that is currently
showing the model and waits for his turn to handle it. What's the problem?

Are you sayingt hat many or most of the cameras on display in Colonial are
the same model? So the selection just shrunk by what, half?

What if there are three customers interested in the same camera? Four? Are
all those 70 cameras in reality only 17 different models?

Tony Cooper:
All that's required is that there are enough display units of
each model for the salesmen to be able to handily access one to
show a customer.

Sandman:
Exactly.

If you figured this out, why couldn't you figure it out above?

I'm not sure what your point is here? I counted cameras, my generous sum
was 70 cameras, of which I assumed where all of different models, no
duplicates.

Tony Cooper:
In fact, it's bad business to have too many units of the same
model camera out on display.

Sandman:
What's this about "of the same model"? You don't need to have more
than one of each model. Sometimes P&S cameras come in several
colors, so those can have more of the same model, but otherwise
there is no need.

Good point when it comes to the point and shoots. However, is this
what your argument has come down to? Arguing about the number of
colored point and shoots required as display merchandise for a store
like Colonial?

Why can't you read English??

Tony Cooper:
That is not an Olympus display behind Frank. There is an
Olympus banner above the section, but the display is not of
Olympus cameras.

Sandman:
Ok, I really can't tell from this photo what camera brands are in
this image, so I just referenced it as the Olympus section.

That gives an idea of the accuracy of your assumptions.

WTF? I counted *cameras*, not brands. There were roughly 70 seperate
cameras on display. Me not being able to see the logo on some of the
cameras does not mean I can't count them. It may mean that you can't count
them, but don't project your limitations to me.

Sandman:
No, I am trying to "prove" that the camera store *selection* is
based on the number of separate models on display, since I would
consider it foolish for a camera store to have camera models
hidden from view, unless they're even smaller than Colonial and
there's not enough space.

What is your substantiation that not every model is on display and
that the selection is limited at Colonial?

Why can't you read English? I said it would be *foolish* of them not to
have every model on display, so I am assuming that all the cameras on
display are representative of the selection of camera models available in
Colonial.

And 70 different models of cameras *is* limited, and "limited" doesn't have
an inheret negative value here, it's just that it's either limited or all
models.

Tony Cooper:
but it raises the point that - if your contention is true - that
all buyers of cameras at Cyberphoto are buying display models
that have been available for handling and use by customers. All
cameras at Cyberphoto are "out of the box" cameras.

Sandman:
Uh, no. They buy boxed cameras, of course. Well, I'm sure they
sell out display models at some point as well, but I'm not sure.

Oh? So there are more units at Cbyperphoto than are on display?

Unit - yes, models - no.

There are units in unopened boxes in Cyberphoto's inventory that can
be sold? You accept that a Cyberphoto but not at Colonial?

WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOUR READING COMPREHENSION, ANDREAS?

I have never said that Colonial doesn't have boxed version of their display
units - in fact I always assumed they did because how else would they sell
cameras?

You mistakenly assumed I used your photos to count the *inventory* of
Colonial, which is a really foolish mistake to make, when it was crystal
clear that I was counting display models, which is NOT inventory. I was
counting *selection*.

If so, the comparison is not about inventory, but about the number
of display units.

Which I've been telling you explicitly since last post, in parts of it that
you didn't even respond to. Why is your brain so slow to grok these simple
conceots - why would you even be so stupid to think ANYONE could count
"inventory" from store photos? That's just idiotic.

Do you want to go back and revise your earlier statements about the small
number of cameras at Colonial to one that says there are a smaller number
of cameras out of the box and out on display in Colonial than expected?

No, since that's what I meant all along. If you are confused, ask me to
clarify.

Tony Cooper:
Personally, I don't want that. I want to buy a new camera that
is "in the box" and untouched by other customers.

Sandman:
As do I. The display models are, shockingly, for display. You buy
the boxed cameras that are in the area below the display area, or
in the storeroom.

Storeroom? Cyberphoto has a storeroom and you think that's a method
of inventory storage that has not been adopted in a US store?

I seriously can't begin to understand how your defective brain can manage
to post to usenet while not being able to read and understand the simplest
of sentences.

Andreas Skitsnack will conclude that me talking about Cyberphoto's premises
must mean that I am also claiming that such premises doesn't exist in USA.
Yes, folks, he is that stupid.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

You have made some sort of change that has resulted in your line
width not being constrained to the appropriate 72 characters or so.
To read your lines, one need to scroll across.

Your posts have not been this way in the past, so it's evidently a
change you have made.

Correct

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Just for reference, here's a shot which is a bit older, from a
local camera sto

http://sandman.net/files/cyberphoto.jpg

In those two cabinets, there's 56 cameras, and I think there are
about 8 or 10 such cabinets in the store, along with other display
forms for cameras and such. So you may understand why I think
Colonial was a bit small and had few cameras?

Here's another view, where you can see more cabinets in the
background.

http://sandman.net/files/cyberphoto2.jpg

That seems to be a much more roomy store than Colonial but it
doesn't look as though it has as much gear out on shelves.

Colonial had some 70:ish cameras on display. Cyberphoto has approximately
some 300-400 models on display.

As I said, they have at least over 100 P&S cameras and about 300 SLR camera
models. Some of these will be different color versions of the same camera,
so there's a margin of error.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014.04.26, 10:36 , Tony Cooper wrote:

You're just raving. You've given up all pretense
of a logical adult argument.

That was obvious months ago so I wonder why you contribute to the
dilution of quality of this group by entertaining it?

--
"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 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Olympus: 20 Fujifilm: 5 Nikon: 20 Unlabeled: 30 Counter:
15 Sum: 70

Tony Cooper:
Really? This is what you are going with?

Sandman:
What do you mean by "going with"?

Tony Cooper:
Sorry, but that's an idiom in US English and it's not fair on my
part to use terms that you might not know. I apologize.

It means "Is this what you are going to use?"

Sandman:
I know what the expression means, Andreas, I am wonder what YOU
mean by it. Was the question too hard for you to understand?

Actually, yes, it was too complicated. The phrasing of your
question is ambiguous and you have a history of not comprehending
idiomatic English.

If I wanted to know what the expression means, I'd ask "What is meant by",
I specifically asked "what do you mean".

If you know what the expression means, then your question has no
reason to be asked.

Incorrect. And I see you still can't answer the question. How predictable

I'm snipping the rest of your rant.

....since you can't deal with fact. I know, I know. Run along now.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Olympus: 20 Fujifilm: 5 Nikon: 20 Unlabeled: 30
Counter: 15 Sum: 70

Tony Cooper:
Really? This is what you are going with?

Sandman:
Incorrect. And I see you still can't answer the question. How
predictable

Oh, I can answer it, but the meaning is so patently obvious that I
have trouble understanding that you don't know what I meant.

I was questioning whether or not you felt that the information you
listed was in any way, even remotely, a valid base for
extrapolation.

If I didn't, why would I include it? So it was a pretty dumb question to
ask.

"going with" seems to question the motive behind my summary. I said the
camera section was small, and you questioned that, then I proceeded to
count the cameras I saw in your photos, and you responded with "this is
what you are going with?" as if number of cameras was an unlikely metric of
size of a camera store.

Then you proceeded to talk endlessly about inventory, as if that had even
been brought up by anyone.

Since not all parts of the display area were photographed, at least
one area was duplicated, and considering the photos were not at all
sharp enough to discern brand and model, it's an obviously invalid
base from which to work.

Not if I wanted to count the number of cameras in the pictures. What parts
of the display area didn't you include? The one with binonuclars? And I
didn't count the duplicate image, nor was my attempt to summarize brands
and models, only a total.

Tony Cooper:
I'm snipping the rest of your rant.

Sandman:
...since you can't deal with fact. I know, I know. Run along now.

I have to.

I know, you can't handle it. So why are you still responding. Run along
now, this is way out of your league.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Since not all parts of the display area were photographed, at
least one area was duplicated, and considering the photos were
not at all sharp enough to discern brand and model, it's an
obviously invalid base from which to work.

Sandman:
Not if I wanted to count the number of cameras in the pictures.
What parts of the display area didn't you include?

Now you ask?

How do you figure that out? Was it the question mark?

Sandman:
I know, you can't handle it. So why are you still responding. Run
along now, this is way out of your league.

What it was way out of is Kissimmee. You know Kissimmee, don't you?
That's where you went to a store you told us was a B&H store.

Yeah, I went to a Best Buy and mistakenl wrote B&H, I'm sure you'll troll
me about that for *years*. People make mistakes, get over it, mr "a
requirement is what you want to do" and mr "Lightroom accepts PS plugins".


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Just for reference, here's a shot which is a bit older, from a
local camera sto

http://sandman.net/files/cyberphoto.jpg

In those two cabinets, there's 56 cameras, and I think there are
about 8 or 10 such cabinets in the store, along with other display
forms for cameras and such. So you may understand why I think
Colonial was a bit small and had few cameras?

Here's another view, where you can see more cabinets in the
background.

http://sandman.net/files/cyberphoto2.jpg

That seems to be a much more roomy store than Colonial but it
doesn't look as though it has as much gear out on shelves.

Colonial had some 70:ish cameras on display. Cyberphoto has approximately
some 300-400 models on display.

As I said, they have at least over 100 P&S cameras and about 300 SLR camera
models. Some of these will be different color versions of the same camera,
so there's a margin of error.

I just looked at the pics and all that I can say is that your Cyberphoto
is way better than our Cyberphoto!!!
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Only around 9.5 million population , not much more than Londons supposed to
be.

I think that London is tiny compared with Mexico City...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography