If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Environment Award goes to BC government over protection of water resource - NOT!
Nestle's uses 230 million liters a year of groundwater. They currently get it for free. The evil one percent will now have to pay for their plundering of nature! Or maybe not.
According to the article they will have to pay the same as companies that extract surface water. Those charges will be between $0.01 and 1.10 per thousand cubic meters. 230 million liters divided by one thousand cubic meters is 230. Their water bill? A whopping $2.30 to $253.00 for those 230 million liters a year depending at where they set the final royalty rate. Much ado about nothing.
I wonder if the BC government will take payment in pennies.
Can the water users of Windsor get a similar rate? I didn't think so.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Wednesday, 12th March, 2014, 08:26 PM.
His math seems to be right. The rate they will pay will normaly be 85¢/million liters, so less than 200$/year if not taxable. Note that it is a fee based on the maximum amount of water they are allowed to pump, regardless of actual consumption and considering that they pump and treat the water themselve. No idea why they don't just ask for a fixed fee, as it would be much simpler.
Actual full processing cost to get a million litters of drinkable water, including distribution, is usually around 350$-750$/million liters. They may get it for much cheaper if they pump and treat their own water, which is what they do AFAIK. Still, managing this fee will cost more than the income, except for the individual citizens that will have to pay a fixed fee of 25$/year/house (what a surprise...)
So now, instead of costing them around 50,000$/year to pump and treat the water, they will spend about 0.4% more. Not sure it will be enough to encourage them to use less of the stuff...
Re: Environment Award goes to BC government over protection of water resource -
Vlad, I shot off an email to the green party candidate in Burlington:
Hi Rebecca,
I am alarmed this morning to read a blog post about the new BC Water Sustainability Act. The post was this:
Nestle's uses 230 million liters a year of groundwater. They currently get it for free. The evil one percent will now have to pay for their plundering of nature! Or maybe not.
According to the article they will have to pay the same as companies that extract surface water. Those charges will be between $0.01 and 1.10 per thousand cubic meters. 230 million liters divided by one thousand cubic meters is 230. Their water bill? A whopping $2.30 to $253.00 for those 230 million liters a year depending at where they set the final royalty rate. Much ado about nothing.
I wonder if the BC government will take payment in pennies.
Can the water users of Windsor get a similar rate? I didn't think so.
I see a lot of platitudes about water as “our most precious resources” but no information about prices. In fact it appears that the pricing policy comes later as they are inviting comments up until April 8th.
Is the blog post accurate? Will a large water bottling company such as Nestle, be allowed to sell off natural resources for as low as $2.30 per year? Will the Green party be making submissions on pricing policy?
I wish I misplaced a decimal. I am not sure if this is due to a typo in the original article or whether whoever wrote the article is functionally illiterate when it comes to metric conversions. I have found that many people's eyes just glaze over when numbers are thrown at them. I like to look at the numbers to understand what I am reading. It really cuts down on the flim flammery that governments, industry and green advocates can get away with. I am sure that the bulk of the people reading the article came away with the impression that the government was protecting the water resource with this new requirement. They really are *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*.
Re: Environment Award goes to BC government over protection of water resource - NOT!
There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter. I think the implication of the article and the way the figures were presented was to give the impression that these new regulations would be more expensive for the company than they are. Its a way to hide the truth in plain sight and then laugh at the unwashed masses who are not in on the joke. Maybe I am just being cynical - or more likely not.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Thursday, 13th March, 2014, 12:34 PM.
I hope you sent them the link to the original article. It is quite possible that the article got it wrong.
They got it right. I didn't based my calculations on the article, but on the sources of the article which is a document produced by the BC government itself. That is why I know that the planed price would be 85¢ for Nestlé and not something between 1.10$ and 0.01$. The minimal fee is 25$ for both businesses and individuals.
There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter. I think the implication of the article and the way the figures were presented was to give the impression that these new regulations would be more expensive for the company than they are. Its a way to hide the truth in plain sight and then laugh at the unwashed masses who are not in on the joke. Maybe I am just being cynical - or more likely not.
It is difficult to say without knowing what they really have in their mind.
One smart approach would be to pass the bill and get the companies to be used to pay a fee without much complains, and then later increase the fee significatively (possibly between 20x and 50x except for the agriculture). On the other hand, this part made me smile:
Simplicity: The approach and rationale for water pricing should be easy to understand and predictable. Individuals and businesses should also know how and when pricing could change so they can plan and budget their costs accordingly.
I don't think that Nestlé will spend lots of planing before paying their 200$ bill...
Costs to users should also reflect a fair return to the Crown for use of a public resource.
Unfortunately. It is probably only in 2-3 years that it will be known if you where right to be cynical, or if this is more than only words.
They got it right. I didn't based my calculations on the article, but on the sources of the article which is a document produced by the BC government itself. That is why I know that the planed price would be 85¢ for Nestlé and not something between 1.10$ and 0.01$. The minimal fee is 25$ for both businesses and individuals.
Well even at approximately $200 for their yearly bill Nestle is getting off pretty easy. Its not unusual for household water bills to be much higher over the course of a month while using much less water.
It is difficult to say without knowing what they really have in their mind.
One smart approach would be to pass the bill and get the companies to be used to pay a fee without much complains, and then later increase the fee significatively (possibly between 20x and 50x except for the agriculture). On the other hand, this part made me smile:
Simplicity: The approach and rationale for water pricing should be easy to understand and predictable. Individuals and businesses should also know how and when pricing could change so they can plan and budget their costs accordingly.
I don't think that Nestlé will spend lots of planing before paying their 200$ bill...
Costs to users should also reflect a fair return to the Crown for use of a public resource.
Unfortunately. It is probably only in 2-3 years that it will be known if you where right to be cynical, or if this is more than only words.
Simon Valiquette
Certainly you need to be cynical and critical about anything that is reported. If there are numbers which justify the assertions in the article you should examine those numbers. I believe that the original article probably reflected some confusion on the metric conversion between cubic meters and liters, otherwise it wouldn't have been considered at all newsworthy.
Re: Environment Award goes to BC government over protection of water resource -
What's the property tax rate for major industrial (which I assume they pay) compared to residential?
A few years ago I had shares in a company which was paying 26 times the residential rate for one of their plants. They took it to court and lost. I bought the shares at a dime or less and sold them around 50 cents. Not that long after I sold the shares they reorganized. Guess what the shareholders got.
When you're talking about BC companies you have to get all the facts.
Tweet
Comment