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.
NASA is distancing itself from a new study that investigates how unsustainable resource exploitation and rising income inequality could potentially lead to the collapse of human civilization as we know it.
NASA officials released this statement on the study today (March 20): "A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."
I'm glad NASA is distancing itself. SUN News Network had a story about this 'study' and they were surprised that NASA seemed to be recommending adopting communism everywhere.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
lol. Maybe the other elements in NASA are counting on the spaceship to save them.
This is kind of a waste of time. Just to argue with you would mean that I acknowledge that the denial point of view has merits. It doesn't. The only articles one can find substantiating the liars is from publications paid for in full by the oil and gas industry. And the same "researchers" that the tobacco industry hired are hired now by the oil and gas industry to deny global warming.
Yawn. Have a nice day.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
I'm glad NASA is distancing itself. SUN News Network had a story about this 'study' and they were surprised that NASA seemed to be recommending adopting communism everywhere.
This is more interesting from the point of view of those of us who think that there appears to be some media conspiracy to lend credibility to global warming and the gloom and doomers like Malthus who were debunked centuries ago. It is left to the gentle reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to whether this is through simple media stupidity and ignorance or whether it reflects some willful, deeper and more sinister agenda.
This is more interesting from the point of view of those of us who think that there appears to be some media conspiracy to lend credibility to global warming and the gloom and doomers like Malthus who were debunked centuries ago. It is left to the gentle reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to whether this is through simple media stupidity and ignorance or whether it reflects some willful, deeper and more sinister agenda.
I vote for a willful, deep sinister agenda.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
lol. Maybe the other elements in NASA are counting on the spaceship to save them.
There was no NASA involvement in this study beyond the media appropriation of the NASA name in order to lend it credibility. Even a radical socialist should be able to see it at this point if he can be honest with himself.
This is kind of a waste of time. Just to argue with you would mean that I acknowledge that the denial point of view has merits. It doesn't. The only articles one can find substantiating the liars is from publications paid for in full by the oil and gas industry. And the same "researchers" that the tobacco industry hired are hired now by the oil and gas industry to deny global warming.
Yawn. Have a nice day.
So you publish a statement based on a demonstrated lie: "NASA funded study says we are doomed." and that is all you have to say? More lies? Is the Met Office paid for in full by the oil and gas industry? Aren't you all embarrassed to have been taken in by a hoax? My suggestion is that you should take anything in the DailyKOS with a healthy dose of skepticism.
My prediction is that all these gloom and doomers will rest on the same history heap of all the other snake oil salesman who are now viewed with some bemusement by anyone who has studied the history of such movements. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Saturday, 22nd March, 2014, 06:43 PM.
Common sense would suggest that all this human activity since the Industrial Revolution probably has had SOME effect on climate. But all these over the top statements about the imminent collapse of civilisation (based on human-created models plus speculation) are not very helpful, and only serve to erode the credibility of the groups making them (but yes, they do get attention). I for one am much more concerned about current problems between Russia and the West leading to a nuclear war. It's a lot clearer what effect THAT would have on human civilisation, and a lot sooner.
A nuclear war would reduce the world population of people precipitously and does represent a more real danger to the world than the supposed ravages of global warming.
Napoleon Bonaparte — ‘Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.’
I'll admit it's a close choice... investigative journalism has gone downhill in all forms of media for many years... yet it's quite possible that the media is being influenced re: 'climate change' the way that political parties and such generally influence the media. That's not to say that influence and incompetence are always exclusive (just look at the backfire effect a fresh 'star candidate' from the media in Quebec had on the PQ's fortunes in the polls recently, with his lack of astuteness re: a possible referendum).
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 22nd March, 2014, 06:42 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I'll admit it's a close choice... investigative journalism has gone downhill in all forms of media for many years... yet it's quite possible that the media is being influenced re: 'climate change' the way that political parties and such generally influence the media. That's not to say that influence and incompetence are always exclusive (just look at the backfire effect a fresh 'star candidate' from the media in Quebec had on the PQ's fortunes in the polls recently, with his lack of astuteness re: a possible referendum).
I wonder how many years of no warming it will take for the church of Gaia/ Carbon Credits/ Global Warming to finally give it a rest. Will it be two decades? If so we are just two years and eight months away from this milestone.
I wonder how many years of no warming it will take for the church of Gaia/ Carbon Credits/ Global Warming to finally give it a rest. Will it be two decades? If so we are just two years and eight months away from this milestone.
There are many parties that have an interest in seeing this global warming business being carried on, possibly indefinitely. People sympathetic to a one world government arising, as led by the UN, for example (who are not above using global warming and other such global 'scares' as trojan horses to achieve this). I posted about the UN's efforts to move toward such a world government in another thread. Also, the media just loves to scare the public for any reason, so as to boost ratings/sales.
One reason I've seen global warmers :) put forward for the recent years without warming is that there has been more volcanic activity. I wouldn't take that on faith.
Btw Vlad, I made a post on the CFC discussion board today, in case you visit that forum very few times a day normally.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 22nd March, 2014, 09:02 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Vlad & Kevin, me thinks’ thou does protest too much!
Anyhow, I do agree that the headline:
NASA: Civilization headed for collapse
Is misleading in that it does imply NASA agrees with the conclusions of the study. I suspect many of them actually do agree, but if it isn’t the official position of the organization, then it just isn’t.
But seriously, I am shocked. A misleading headline on an internet blog, who would have thought that possible?
Politics aside, this study addresses an important question: Are we headed for a collapse of civilization if we continue on our current path? I think the answer is obvious: Yes. The evidence is all around us.
The natural resources of the planet are finite, whereas human consumption continues to grow. The population continues to grow as well as the average economic footprint. This imbalance can’t continue indefinitely. We have a population of 7 billion people now, but that significantly exceeds the long-term sustainable level. Prior studies have also estimated the sustainable level at 1-2 billion people.
We continue to pollute our air, water and soil. We have not solved the problem of what to do with our nuclear waste. Oil and gas reserves will not last forever. Accelerating species extinction continues unabated. We continue to debase our agricultural land and food supply with excessive pesticide use. New super bugs from overuse of antibiotics. Fish stocks decline as we use our oceans as giant garbage dumps and acidity levels climb. Landfills continue to fill up with toxic materials, and …….
Is civilization collapse inevitable? Are we talking about decades, centuries, or millenniums? Can we take global action to push back the day of reckoning?
My preference is to advocate for global action to solve these global problems.
Vlad & Kevin, me thinks’ thou does protest too much!
Anyhow, I do agree that the headline:
NASA: Civilization headed for collapse
Is misleading in that it does imply NASA agrees with the conclusions of the study. I suspect many of them actually do agree, but if it isn’t the official position of the organization, then it just isn’t.
A dubious study tried to trade on the NASA name in order to lend itself credibility. As Nigel said who am I to question what the rocket scientists say. The claims that the study were somehow funded by NASA or approved by NASA are not true. DailyKOS is not a serious blog where you can trust the claims that are made. Neither are most of the news media. You always have to look at the original study in order to assess the credibility of any claims that are being made. The Church of the Impending Climate Catastrophe is simply the successor to a long line of false magic nose goblins which started in antiquity but were also reflected in the ideas of Malthus which you now seem to be repeating.
But seriously, I am shocked. A misleading headline on an internet blog, who would have thought that possible?
Me for one.
Politics aside, this study addresses an important question: Are we headed for a collapse of civilization if we continue on our current path?
Civilization collapsed long ago, particularly in parts of the world to which these yahoos are suggesting we redistribute our wealth.
I think the answer is obvious: Yes. The evidence is all around us.
Frankly its just wishful thinking on the part of the people who hate our society.
The natural resources of the planet are finite, whereas human consumption continues to grow.
This was what Malthus said and he predicted the collapse of civilization in the nineteenth century. Why do you say that the resources of the planet are finite? Which resources are you referring to?
The population continues to grow as well as the average economic footprint. This imbalance can’t continue indefinitely.
So said Malthus in 1798.
We have a population of 7 billion people now, but that significantly exceeds the long-term sustainable level. Prior studies have also estimated the sustainable level at 1-2 billion people.
So the green plan is to kill 5-6 billion people?
We continue to pollute our air, water and soil. We have not solved the problem of what to do with our nuclear waste.
Good thing we didn't continue to adhere to the Kyoto treaty. Our money would have gone to Russia to help refurbish the missiles aimed at us.
Oil and gas reserves will not last forever.
Why not? This theory is old. If you go back 60 years and look at the reported remaining reserves of oil, and then 50 years ago, and then 40 years ago, and then 30 years ago, and 20 years ago, and then 10 years ago and then today what do you think you will find? Oil reserves went up year after year after year. Peak oil is rarely mentioned anymore in serious company. This has resulted in the green movement trying to deny us use of the oil that has already been found.
Accelerating species extinction continues unabated. We continue to debase our agricultural land and food supply with excessive pesticide use. New super bugs from overuse of antibiotics. Fish stocks decline as we use our oceans as giant garbage dumps and acidity levels climb. Landfills continue to fill up with toxic materials, and …….
Is civilization collapse inevitable? Are we talking about decades, centuries, or millenniums?
If we are talking about thousands of years then it is largely irrelevant. Who knows what technologies will emerge by then.
Can we take global action to push back the day of reckoning?
My preference is to advocate for global action to solve these global problems.
Pollution sure. Lets do what we can to address that. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. These giant social experiments will not address pollution. They are merely designed to make certain people rich at the expense of everyone else.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Sunday, 23rd March, 2014, 10:10 PM.
This business of running out of resources is just that, a big business. With a very few exceptions such as water and the oxygen in our air most resources are not an absolute necessity in and of themselves. There will be substitutes. If a resource becomes too scarce and expensive it will be replaced with something that is less scarce and less expensive.
Instead of focusing on carbon dioxide why don't they go after the companies that are polluting our waters or our air with poisons? The answer is that there is no money in that.
No. The green plan is to save as many of them as possible.
By encouraging energy production from renewable sources (such as solar, wind, etc), and with better energy efficiency and conservation, we increase the ability of the planet to sustain human life. Energy sources that destroy our environment does the opposite. I thought everyone understood this!
Tweet
Comment