Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Lakey, I’ve been enjoying the Olympics . . . my life does not revolve around ESMB or this thread. So here I am back now because I cannot let your retort to me in your post #15889 go uncorrected.
Carmelo made an incorrect and denigrating statement in Post #15875 on 19 July.
To wit:
This is a tech friendly thread. Very few mean words are said here, and those that are said, seem to be aimed at Lakey by Toady and Roger mainly.
I responded to Carmelo because it is a matter of honor to not allow another to spread falsehood about one. You responded to my response to Carmelo . . . . I think my Dear Lakey, you got suckered in there a bit
Carmelo has not answered my correcting his incorrect accusation.
Here’s the traffic: Lakey responding to me for my answer to Carmelo . . it’s post # 15889:
Originally Posted by RogerB
Wot??
You're way off target here, mister.
Please cite the "mean words" I've used against Lakey.
(Lakey inserted his reply in blue here)
I don't know about mean words but you attack me a lot, sometimes using subtle innuendos. I have never experienced you putting a "like" on any of my posts. Sometimes I will make what I think is an innocent comment over some trivial fact, such as stating how many tall buildings exist in Shanghai. You took me to task on that when everything I posted was correct.
Umm, let’s look at the actuality of the posted traffic on that . . .
First of all, I was replying to CarmelO’s inaccurate and denigrating statement in his post # #15875 on this thread
“Very few mean words are said here, and those that are said, seem to be aimed at Lakey by Toady and Roger mainly.”
Apart from the falsehood (as verified by you) in his statement that I’ve aimed mean words at you, he omits to consider the “mean” words consistently directed particularly at me when I have posted tech info for the benefit of the troops.
You verify his falsity in your reply and that I have not used “mean words” directed at you.
On the “attack on you a lot” and the points you write above:
“I will make what I think is an innocent comment over some trivial fact, such as stating how many tall buildings exist in Shanghai. You took me to task on that when everything I posted was correct.”
Let’s look at the actual traffic of the exchanges of posts . . .
On 25 May I replied in post #14973 to your post below:
Check out this link about skyscraper construction in Shanghai:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...gs_in_Shanghai
The article states that Shanghai has is second to Chicago in the number of skyscrapers. (I thought Chicago was second to New York City). Their tallest current skyscraper is Shanghai Tower which is 101 floors and 1,614 feet tall but a new Shanghai Tower currently under construction will top out at 128 floors and 2,073 feet tall about 600 feet more than the Sears Tower in Chicago, the tallest building in the USA. Of their vast list of skyscrapers, 165 or more, the oldest one listed was built in 1997.
Probably in the 70's the tallest building in Shanghai was only 11 floors (just guessing). China holds over a trillion dollars in US debt. If we default and do a reset, as you mentioned earlier, it is going to burst their bubble.
These hundreds of buildings cost billions to build and they are expensive to lease space in. Its hard to believe that a Ponzi scheme could sustain such growth over several decades. China is a manufacturing country like the USA used to be. I don't know the stats but they probably manufacture more goods now than any other country. What country would be richer than China, certainly not the USA. Germany is doing very well for its size, maybe it has the most wealth per capita, but its is way too small to be richer than China.
Lakey
I replied in post #14973
That part in red above, Lakey . . . some jumbled words in it.
Surely the point is the height not the number . . . .
What was named "The Sears Tower" in Chicago is the tallest in the US . . . and certainly the largest number and density of skyscrapers in is NYC (and you don't have to include Brooklyn in that count: just Manhattan).
R
So where is the attack in that? . . . I actually agreed your belief (which belief is contrary to the website you cited) that NYC has more skyscrapers than Chicago and note our following dialogue . . .
You replied:
Originally Posted by lkwdblds
No, Roger, they are talking about the number over a specific height, which is 400 meters, Here's the direct quote from the link which I referenced:
The city of Shanghai, China is one of the fastest growing cities in the world in terms of skyscraper construction,[1] with the City of Shanghai reporting at the end of 2004 that there had been 6,704 buildings of 11 stories or more completed since 1990.[2] As of December 2011, there are 1,057 completed high-rise buildings in the city, and 165 high-rise buildings either under construction, approved for construction, or proposed for construction, of which three are over 300 m (980 ft) high[3]. Since 2008, Shanghai has boasted more free-standing buildings above 400m (3) than any other city (except Chicago).[A]
The last sentence was what I was referring to. The key to the sentence is the clause, "buildings more than 400m". I didn't bother to calculate how tall 400 meters is and all that stuck in my mind as I wrote my post was that Shanghai was second to Chicago in the number of very tall buildings. I found this odd because I knew that New York City had a greater number of very tall buildings, say over 900', than Chicago does.
Well, 400 meters works out to 1,313'. That knowledge resolves the matter since when the World Trade Center's twin towers, both over 400 meters tall, were destroyed on 9/11. the Empire State building reverted back to being the tallest building in New York City. It stands "only" 1,250' which is about 380 meters. Chicago has buildings over 400 meters and after 9/11 NYC had none. According to Wikepedia, Shanghai, with 3 is second to Chicago in buildings over 400m. The article suggests that Chicago has more although I just looked it up and found only 2. The former Sears tower is now called the Willis Tower and stands 442 meters and one other tower is shown at 421 meters.
I hope that clears it up!
Lakey
To which I responded on 25 may in post # 14980:
Umm, check my wording. It did not challenge you, but challenged the data you cited . . . .
I see they are citing 11 stories high in the article to call it a "skyscraper" . . . Christ, 11 stories is something you'd trip over in Manhattan. We've got old 110+ year old "townhouses" that high here.
A few very High new buildings is interesting, of course . . . the Chinese are way behind on height . . . try Malaysia and Dubai. Malaysia has two twins higher than anything in China.
They absolutely have their facts wrong on absolute numbers of buildings you could/would consider as "skyscrapers" in comparative cities. In New Your the calculation is 13'-14' per floor of a building.
Chicago is on record as the city that put up the first (TRUE) skyscraper . . . . but they in no way have a greater number than NYC.
There is a current argument on the new Freedom Tower that replaces the 9/11 killed WTC twin towers on/of what to include in the overall height . . . things like: is the telecommunications tower atop it enclosed--by what and how, and should it be included anyway in its height. Other structures do . . . . there is a recent article in the NY Times on this . . . the tower will add 200+ feet at the top . . . currently, the hard structure of the actual building is 1320+ feet up.
But I say all this in the context that in terms of "skyscraper numbers in any one city." Take a walk down mid-town Manhattan. 6th Av is lined with 40+ story buildings . . . mid-town Manhattan is full of them . . . . and down town in the "financial district" of Manhattan: good God, you've got to see the current skyline.
ANd that does not include Brooklyn that is also part of NYC.
You replied to this as below on May 25 in post # 14982
Originally Posted by RogerB
Umm, check my wording. It did not challenge you, but challenged the data you cited . . . .
I see they are citing citing 11 stories high in the article to call it a "skyscraper" . . . Christ, 11 stories is something you'd trip over in Manhattan. We've got old 110+ year old "townhouses" that high here.
A few very High new buildings is interesting, of course . . . the Chinese are way behind on height . . . try Malaysia and Dubai Malaysia has two twins higher than anything in China.
They don't have just a few, their concentration is greater than that of Chicago and 80% of that of NYC (see below). The new Shanghai Tower now under construction will be about 2072' tall and 128 floors. This beats anything in Malaysia and will give China the second tallest building in the world behind Dubai's unprecedented 2722' Tower!
They absolutely have their facts wrong on absolute numbers of buildings you could/would consider as "skyscrapers" in comparative cities. In New Your the calculation is 13'-14' per floor of a building.
On the number of feet per floor of a building, it varies. For hotel type buildings with no spire or tower and a flat roof, it can go as low as 10's per floor, 8' high celings and 2' between floors. In Honolulu they seem to have a 400' height limit and they have dozens of hotels which are 40 floors and 400'.
If you have a tower or a spire, like most of the older skyscrapers and some of the new ones, you probably run 12' to 14' per floor.
Chicago is on record as the city that put up the first (TRUE) skyscraper . . . . but they in no way have a greater number than NYC.
No one says that they have a greater number than NYC. What is said is that they have more buildings over 400 meters tall than NYC AT THIS TIME. NYC had their only two destoyed, The current highest building, the Empire State Building, is 380 meters.
The new Freedom Tower will be 402 meters in its hard structure so NYC will then have one but Chicago has two in that category. In all other categories, NYC has more.
There is a current argument on the new Freedom Tower that replaces the 9/11 killed WTC twin towers on/of what to include in the overall height . . . things like: is the telecommunications tower atop it enclosed--by what and how, and should it be included anyway in its height. Other structures do . . . . there is a recent article in the NY Times on this . . . the tower will add 200+ feet at the top . . . currently, the hard structure of the actual building is 1320+ feet up.
But I say all this in the context that in terms of "skyscraper numbers in any one city." Take a walk down mid-town Manhattan. 6th Av is lined with 40+ story buildings . . . mid-town Manhattan is full of them . . . . and down town in the "financial district" of Manhattan: good God, you've got to see the current skyline.
No one is challenging the fact that NYC is the densest concentration of skyscrapers in the world. Wikepedia has a list of the tallest for every major city in the world. NYC has the most and Chicago is second with about 52% as many.
And that does not include Brooklyn that is also part of NYC.
Roger, I provided a link to read but you obviously did click on it. All the data I cited is correct. We really don't have any disagreements
I agree that the article is confusing when it cites 11 stories as a skyscraper. I am just guessing that was the height of the tallest building in Shanghai before their modern building boom started. However, they give an extensive list of every skyscraper in Shanghai. They show 3 categories of buildings - Completed buildings, buildings under construction and buildings approved for construction but not started yet.
In the completed buildings section, I have copied the first 41 buildings. The building in 41st place is 663' tall with 42 stories. I looked up NYC and it's 52nd tallest building is 664' while in Chicago it'2 27th tallest building is 668'. NYC is therefore has the greatest density. If you call NYC 100 in terms of density then Shanghai would be 80% as dense and Chicago would 52% as dense. I had no idea that Shanghai was that dense. At 80% it is much closer to NYC than Chicago.
Rank Name Height
m / ft Floors Year Notes
Snipped (list of all buildings in Shanghai
To read this, you have the rank of the building, it's name, its height in meters, then in feet and its number of stories.
Lakey
On May 26th in post # 14994 I replied as follows, making this particular comment:
“All I've been trying to point out, mate, they got their facts wrong in saying Chicago has a greater number of "skyscrapers" than NYC . . . . you eventually ended up citing that fact
”
See it in the post copied below
Originally Posted by lkwdblds
Roger, I provided a link to read but you obviously did click on it. All the data I cited is correct. We really don't have any disagreements
I agree that the article is confusing when it cites 11 stories as a skyscraper. I am just guessing that was the height of the tallest building in Shanghai before their modern building boom started. However, they give an extensive list of every skyscraper in Shanghai. They show 3 categories of buildings - Completed buildings, buildings under construction and buildings approved for construction but not started yet.
In the completed buildings section, I have copied the first 41 buildings. The building in 41st place is 663' tall with 42 stories. I looked up NYC and it's 52nd tallest building is 664' while in Chicago it'2 27th tallest building is 668'. NYC is therefore has the greatest density. If you call NYC 100 in terms of density then Shanghai would be 80% as dense and Chicago would 52% as dense. I had no idea that Shanghai was that dense. At 80% it is much closer to NYC than Chicago.
Rank Name Height
m / ft Floors Year Notes
Snipped
To read this, you have the rank of the building, it's name, its height in meters, then in feet and its number of stories.
Lakey
All I've been trying to point out, mate, they got their facts wrong in saying Chicago has a greater number of "skyscrapers" than NYC . . . . you eventually ended up citing that fact
NYC long ago lost its "highest building" status.
Within 5-10 years the Chinese will have the mostest and biggest . . . and by then the $$ will relative scrap paper compared to its current status.
Rog
You replied in good spirit stating these words in post # 14998 on May 26:
“Rog - Thank God this is not a serious topic and that we agree on all points.”
And, “We both agree that NYC has the most skyscrapers . . . “
And, “Cheers to being in agreement on all points of this!”
Originally Posted by RogerB
All I've been trying to point out, mate, they got their facts wrong in saying Chicago has a greater number of "skyscrapers" than NYC . . . . you eventually ended up citing that fact
NYC long ago lost its "highest building" status.
Within 5-10 years the Chinese will have the mostest and biggest . . . and by then the $$ will relative scrap paper compared to its current status.
Rog
Rog - Thank God this is not a serious topic and that we agree on all points. The article I quoted said that Chicago had the most skyscrapers above 400 meters and Shanghai was second to them. I think that where I misled you is that when I quoted the article I left off the descriptive "400 meters" and put "very tall buildings" in its place. Then the article mentions that more than 1000 skyscrapers over 11 stories have been built. This is also misleading because 11 stories is tiny and is not a skyscraper.
We both agree that NYC has the most skyscrapers and I agree with your last paragraph that someday China will have more and at that time our currency will be relative scrap paper.
I'm willing to leave it at that so if you want to reply further, I will give you the last word. Cheers to being in agreement on all points of this!
Lakey
So, ummmm, where was there, is there, any “taking you to task” or “attack on you” in any of that?
I simply pointed out that an article you cited got a fact wrong . . . . though I will say it took too bloody long for you to eventually get what I was referring to and saying . . . and I’ll further say all the added and extra traffic created by you to deal with my simple pointing out of the article’s error is quite astounding. A simple ack, as in TR2, would have been a wonderful relief!
And further, based on and in the context of the above actual exchange you refer to I have to say your opening paragraph of your attempt to rebut what I wrote to Carmelo is actually quite astounding.
This opening paragraph by you:
I don't know about mean words but you attack me a lot, sometimes using subtle innuendos. I have never experienced you putting a "like" on any of my posts. Sometimes I will make what I think is an innocent comment over some trivial fact, such as stating how many tall buildings exist in Shanghai. You took me to task on that when everything I posted was correct.
How does it comport with the above referenced and copy/pasted exchange? It does not.
And let’s look at the next charmer you cite in your post # 15889:
Another typical example relates to my post on the musical scale being based on 432 Hz for middle A instead of 440 Hz. I found this topic interesting and put it up for discussion. It should have been a take it or leave it thing. The reaction I got was an unbelievable amount of bashing by many people. You did not bash yourself but the few remarks you made were negative and dismissive and, as usual, you supported Toady who was bashing every sentence I wrote on the topic.
And let’s look at the actuality of the posted traffic on that . . .
The first of my responses to this subject you are now accusing as denigrating of you, is this one dated 11 July, post #15757 . . . .
Please note it was in support of you and contributing to you, and you actually responded with a thank you . . . .
Re: Get More out of All Music?!! - 432 Hz
Originally Posted by lkwdblds
I attended a class today about 432 Hz (Hertz) music. In this type of music the middle C note vibrates at 432 vibrations per second instead of the 440 vps which has become standard.
Claims are made about 432 Hz music as being the natural vibration which should serve as the middle note of the musical scale. For example, 432 is very close to the square root of the velocity of light in a vacuum 186,282 miles per second. (The sq root of "C" is 431.6) The claim is further made that life resonates more to 432 vps than 440 vps and all tones one a scale built on 432 vps scale as well.
Here is a link to a site which describes more about 432 Hz music:
http://www.echad.se/topics/935
Just listening to it subjectively, I find that 432 Hz music penetrates much deeper than 440 hz music and causes much more beneficial vibrations to occur with me. All forms of music sound more sacred and ethereal when the pitch is lowered by this amount which is a bit less than 1/2%! Also, 432 Hz music is excellent for rhythm as well. A rhythmic tune causes one to feel happiness and break into a smile at this frequency. "Pink Floyd" has made numerous recordings at 432 Hz.
Snipped . . . .
Any comments. Is this type of music old hat and known to most people or is it generally not known about?
Lakey
Lakey,
See if the stuff at this link on brainwave harmonics applies . . .
http://www.brainsync.com/brainlab/ab...e-therapy.html
also do the goggle search on binaural beats or signals here:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=....,cf.osb&cad=b
Rog
My next little contribution to the topic was on 13th July in post # 15782 . . . It was in response to Mr. Nobody’s fulsome and lucid piece that gave his credential as a 40 on-stage and professional musician and to be noted is his experience fixing and tuning instruments . . . . I don’t even mention you or refer to you or anything you wrote and please find and cite anything that is, to use your words:
“but the few remarks you made were negative and dismissive and, as usual, you supported Toady who was bashing every sentence I wrote on the topic”
My other two posts on this music subject was to explain what I referred to as the “wolf sound” in violins . . .
It is, however, to be noted that you gave this following innocent little post to Mr. N a “dislike”
WTF was that all about? I overlooked it at the time, thinking you must have hit a wrong button . . . but revisiting the tread I see you were throwing out dislikes like confetti at the time.
Originally Posted by MrNobody
Lakey, I know you don't want to hear (read) this, but I think you've fallen for some strange frequency-Voodoo. I've put your words to the test:
1. I took one of the concert guitars I have here, tuned it to exactly A= 440 Hz, played a song, then tuned it to A=432 Hz and played the same song. The result was what I expected: At 432 Hz the Guitar was a bit easier to play, sounded a little smoother and a bit more muddy, due to the slightly lower string tension. That's all. Guitar vendors all over the world tune their instruments a little lower for that exact reason: They're easier to play and (the instrument's as well as the player's) mistakes are less audible. Which, by the way, is the reason why I always carry a good digital tuner with me, when I shop for instruments.
2. I replayed a stored Classical and a stored Blues song on an electric piano at A= 440 Hz and at A=432 Hz, and although the difference in the same songs was audible when switching between these two tunings, it had no emotional effect on me. You may blame my almost 40 years on stage for that.
So yeah, I think it's just Voodoo which has no real effect on anybody.
You have a computer, right? Try it yourself, downloadAudacity and tune any recorded song to whatever you like. The program is free for personal use and it's available for all major platforms, AFAIK.
Oh, and about discord: Did you ever look inside a piano? Did you ever tune one? Most keys have 3 strings/key. Tune all 3 strings of any keys to their exact same frequency. What do you get? An extremely dull sounding piano at best. You don't need to believe me, you can just try it yourself. An acceptable digital chromatic tuner shouldn't cost you more than 25 bucks.
But don't come running to me when your piano sounds like shit, after you've tried that.
, MrN
OK, Mr N . . .
With 40 years on stage as a musician I believe you
This patter reminds me of when I played the fiddle for a while. One of the things told to me is that all violins have what is called a "wolf tone" . . . . that is a particular pitch that sets up a discordant resonance that results in a rather off pitch ugly sound . . . .
Good violins simply are lucky enough to not have the "wolf tone" on a needed regular "note."
Ummm, not that I know whether I hit one of these things . . . I didn't have a good fiddle, and my playing was rather rotten anyway
Rog
So, the above is the sum and total of my posts on the subject of music except for one additional response to Mr. N and Smilla referring to the phenomenon of “harmonic resonance” and how they can either build and increase an effect or be out of phase and begin to cancel and negate each other.
And for the record I did not reply to anything Toady wrote on the subject nor did I “support” with “likes” or “thank you’s” . . . so much for your dub-in here.
Lakey, I’ll not be going on further with this. It ain’t worth the time.
“Face” was smart to cut his losses trying to help you get it right. He simply ended saying au revoir. MAB’s analysis of your writing and behavior is correct.
You may recall we friends (several of us), some time ago, tried to advise you what it was you were compulsively doing to piss-off and wear out your friends here on ESMB . . . . and you said you took it to heart and would reform.
It ain’t happened, Mate.
You dub-in other stuff than is the actuality of what is said or has occurred. See the above. In the world outside of Scn, they don’t refer to it as “dub-in” . . . they call it delusion. It is the act of seeing or thinking things to be other than they are. It is the act of chronic misduplication of what is.
It’s as though your fingers are compulsively having to answer with something without first connecting to the resources of the brain . . . . we’ve all heard the saying that some “engage their mouths without connecting their brains” . . . . it’s like that: there’s a monster disconnect.
For me Mate, it is too bloody wearing and time consuming. And it is certainly no fun.
So I am leaving you to it. Your final attempt at a riposte in this reply of yours is disappointing . . . you should refer to our earlier discourse and friendship over the years where I consistently validated and helped you. You seem to have betrayed that somewhere along the way to now say things like: “Still an admirer but no longer a friend.”
Either that, or you are listening to the wrong people who you think are friends . . . it’s the old valid law that Hubbard misused and called “the Third Party Law.” . . . for reference, I recommend reading your Shakespeare . . . look at the phenomena he expressed so well in the characters of Iago bending and poisoning the mind of Othello or Cassius misleading poor dumb Brutus to stupid violence.
Much is lost when one chooses poorly who one thinks is a friend and/or who to listen to.
It is a good exercise to observe the general nature of posts and conduct by individuals and to observe what they are intending and creating . . . it helps one choose friends more wisely.
I have tried to be kind in dealing with you regarding the above . . . what I have written are the simple facts that can be observed . . . you can take them of leave them.
For me, I have other things to deal with in life.
The only other thing I’ll add here is that I will be posting on another thread, later, on the subject of “reality” versus “actuality” that TAJ so elegantly wrote on; but with a twist. The twist is one that Alan Walter saw: that of the Level of Awareness and operating paradigm of “Significance to Self” . . . they don’t see what is actually present there, they only see either what is significant to them or what they themselves project there and superimpose.
RogerB
