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.
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!
I don't think it is quite as simple as that. One might argue that increasing energy efficiency (etc) only allows MORE people to be created thus greatly accelerating the demise of the species... :)
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.
I can go back 45 years. When I started working with Nat Gas people worried the supply would run out and we'd be out of jobs. One of the older guys used to say not to worry. As soon as the price goes up they will find more.
You hear about the rare earth metals. REE. Most aren't really that rare. The problem is they are expensive to mine. Many are in low concentrations and the problem is finding a deposit with a high enough content to make money mining them.
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!
If you want better energy efficiency then solar and wind is definitely not the way to go. There is a reason that they need subsidies which price them at twenty or thirty times the cost of some of the alternatives. Green energy sources make the system as a whole less efficient and productive and boost costs astronomically. that is why governments are walking away from their commitments and why our energy prices are blowing through the roof despite only a small portion of our generation of electricity coming from hugely overpriced green energy sources.
The long term solution to population growth to to raise the overall standard of living. If you look at the Canada and the Western world, the birth rate is less than 2 children per women, with typical numbers around 1.7-1.8, depending on the country. So our populations would naturally decrease. The only reason why they are not are our immigration policies. If this trend spread thoughout the world, population growth would halt. 100 years from now that may be the reality.
The long term solution to population growth to to raise the overall standard of living. If you look at the Canada and the Western world, the birth rate is less than 2 children per women, with typical numbers around 1.7-1.8, depending on the country. So our populations would naturally decrease. The only reason why they are not are our immigration policies. If this trend spread thoughout the world, population growth would halt. 100 years from now that may be the reality.
People in the western world probably don't wish to self-sacrifice for the sake of raising more than two children as much as they used to. I suspect it's more due to the decline of [true belief in] our traditional religion (which advocates self-sacrifice, at least to some extent) than due to an increase in the standard of living (although selfish greed by many, even, may be at the root of our having such a standard). One can look at any number of wealthy eastern countries, and compare average family sizes to test this theory.
Fighting pollution in a sane manner, and fighting all kinds of corruption at all levels, while looking to colonize space asap, is a safe enough way to go without denying people the right to have as many children as they like. There may be epidemics and famines that will, sadly, take care of overpopulation in good time if we don't colonize other worlds first, assuming that there were ever any close enough that were meant to hold our form of life. That's if we don't blow each other up first.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
People in the western world probably don't wish to self-sacrifice for the sake of raising more than two children as much as they used to. I suspect it's more due to the decline of [true belief in] our traditional religion (which advocates self-sacrifice, at least to some extent) than due to an increase in the standard of living (although selfish greed by many, even, may be at the root of our having such a standard). One can look at any number of wealthy eastern countries, and compare average family sizes to test this theory.
There's plenty of data for those who actually care about the facts. Mind you, in a climate change denial thread, all bets are off.
Anyway, there is very good data on the following: the better educated women are, the smaller their families. It's really that simple. Hence all those religious fundamentalists with big families; they like keeping their "womenfolk" poorly educated, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Like Nazis with their Kinder, Küche, Kirche, those who hate women hate education. Virulently.
Carry on. The water's rising, smart guys. What I'd really like to see is a survival movement; all those opposed to doing anything about global warming should be pushed out FIRST of whatever survival arrangements are made. Maybe the story of Noah isn't Biblical fantasy but rather Science Fiction of what was to come.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
the paper claims to have new evidence that between 2001 and 2009 the cross-sectional relationship between fertility and women’s education in the U.S. is U-shaped.
[edit: As for much of the rest of your post, I'm not quite sure if, upon reflection, you wouldn't agree it could be self-moderated better, using your own chesstalk guideline #9:
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.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Monday, 24th March, 2014, 08:11 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Anyway, there is very good data on the following: the better educated women are, the smaller their families. It's really that simple. Hence all those religious fundamentalists with big families; they like keeping their "womenfolk" poorly educated, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Like Nazis with their Kinder, Küche, Kirche, those who hate women hate education. Virulently.
We never thought of it that way when we were having our kids.
Last edited by Gary Ruben; Tuesday, 25th March, 2014, 10:45 AM.
the paper claims to have new evidence that between 2001 and 2009 the cross-sectional relationship between fertility and women’s education in the U.S. is U-shaped.
[edit: As for much of the rest of your post, I'm not quite sure if, upon reflection, you wouldn't agree it could be self-moderated better, using your own chesstalk guideline #9:
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.]
lol. Instead of lecturing me about evidence, maybe you could lecture Gary about calling the moderator a "moron". Or doesn't that suit your agenda?
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
I can go back 45 years. When I started working with Nat Gas people worried the supply would run out and we'd be out of jobs. One of the older guys used to say not to worry. As soon as the price goes up they will find more.
You hear about the rare earth metals. REE. Most aren't really that rare. The problem is they are expensive to mine. Many are in low concentrations and the problem is finding a deposit with a high enough content to make money mining them.
In 1980 there was 48 years of natural gas left based on consumption rates at the time and recoverable reserves. Today there is a 92 year supply based on present technology and recovery methods. In 2050 there will probably be a 200 year supply.
You seem upset. Your buddy Al Gore has more to worry about than me. He has ocean front property. Windsor is over 600 feet above sea level.
What I'd really like to see is a survival movement; all those opposed to doing anything about global warming should be pushed out FIRST of whatever survival arrangements are made.
You're just being silly now. If I live to be 105, four years older than my grandfather's brother was when he died there is zero likelihood that global warming will have any discernible effect on my survival. If the temperature trends stay the same as they have over the last 17 years and four months I could live to 1000 years and there would be no discernible effect on my survival.
Maybe the story of Noah isn't Biblical fantasy but rather Science Fiction of what was to come.
You missed the lesson of that story but it is interesting to see how offended you get when people question your religious beliefs. Perhaps, in the interests of your blood pressure these types of climate change discussions should be banned as they are on some other chess discussion boards.
I think at least some, if not most, of the well from Fracking has a fast decline rate. And it's not the same for each well. Probably it's hard to say the size of the reserves. I don't know if there are environmental problems with the fracking. On this one the environmentalists might have a point but I don't know for sure. One company I had shares in fracked a well and some fluids came out a well of some other company. I don't think that was planned.
A retraction of your characterization of people who choose to have larger than average families would be nice. How do you feel about people who decide to adopt several children?
Maternity leave has become nice for people who decide to have children. Back in the day, my wife was told not to come back when she left to have our first child.
Tweet
Comment