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!)
ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
Agreed. However I think that retooling society to lower and quickly eliminate emissions would cause an economic boom. Look at the economies of European countries that have already done this...
I am not a big believer in GDP as a measure of economic growth. Doing things like scrapping older, still usable **and completely paid for** cars for newer ones **that aren't paid for** is going to be considered "growth". I am sure the banks and the government love that idea. Make everyone slaves to debt.
Our economic numbers require that people buy more and more things - which are all taxed - with money from income that require people to work more and more hours - which are also taxed. Brad brings up a good point that the people who have suddenly found religion on global warming are the ones who hold the public pursestrings, or would like to. It is in their interest to manufacture a crisis, or at least take advantage of one that actually exists, in order to extract more money and usurp more power over how people run their lives.
I am highly skeptical of the idea that somehow technology is going to save us. I am even more skeptical that humans will suddenly sacrifice their short-term interests for some larger, long-term, uncertain one. Most of all I am skeptical that the transition from where we are now to where Greens want us to be will be pleasant and still allow people to consume at the rate and in the way that they are doing now.
I think if Al Gore and his brethren were honest, they would tell us that. But if they did then there is no chance that any of them would be able to carry out their vision of the future, eh? ;-)
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Friday, 4th December, 2009, 05:13 PM.
Reason: clarify last sentence
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
LOL....duh, yes, the planet will cleanse itself of the human race. Nobody is worried about the planet surviving, it the inhabitants!
Some appear to be arguing our fate is inevitable, and we're only getting what we deserve, extinction. :o But what of the turtles and penguins! They never hurt nobody.
It never really entered my mind that our species is all that important in the scheme of things. Possibly we will evolve to the point where we adapt to a new reality and possibly we won't.
Do you deny the next ice age will come and at the end the population of our species will be much less or non existant?
How many billion people now live on the earth and how much new land do we need for agriculture and food production? Will a new ice age leave enough land and a warm enough climate to continue this production? :)
Did you know that the Norwegians have obtained most of the seeds of the world and put them in a vault on an Arctic island that is temperature controlled and run off renewable energy?
No use is getting depressed over all these negatives, the depressing thing is that most people are oblivious to these issues. Knowing about an issue is a good first step to addressing it.
I know that Norway found hugh oil reserves and the nation is doing very well. My friend Arild in Norway is in oil and gas and I enjoy discussing the topic with him.
I used to joke with him that Norway had bought a stake in our Alberta Tar Sands and they were going to rape our country of its natural resources. He later informed me they had put the project on hold indefinately.
I am not a big believer in GDP as a measure of economic growth. Doing things like scrapping older, still usable **and completely paid for** cars for newer ones **that aren't paid for** is going to be considered "growth". I am sure the banks and the government love that idea. Make everyone slaves to debt.
Our economic numbers require that people buy more and more things - which are all taxed - with money from income that require people to work more and more hours - which are also taxed. Brad brings up a good point that the people who have suddenly found religion on global warming are the ones who hold the public pursestrings, or would like to. It is in their interest to manufacture a crisis, or at least take advantage of one that actually exists, in order to extract more money and usurp more power over how people run their lives.
I am highly skeptical of the idea that somehow technology is going to save us. I am even more skeptical that humans will suddenly sacrifice their short-term interests for some larger, long-term, uncertain one. Most of all I am skeptical that the transition from where we are now to where Greens want us to be will be pleasant and still allow people to consume at the rate and in the way that they are doing now.
I think if Al Gore and his brethren were honest, they would tell us that. But if they did then there is no chance that any of them would be able to carry out their vision of the future, eh? ;-)
I have a proposal for an attempt at a solution to the CO2 problem. This proposal would be expensive, but would not involve producing new cars to replace old ones.
Build massive wind turbine platforms to be anchored throughout the world, but not on land -- on the ocean surface. These turbines will hold not only huge arrays of wind turbines to generate electricity, but the turbines will rise out of a veritable rainforest growing on the surface of each platform. The plants of each rainforest will be optimized for their CO2 absorbing and oxygen releasing properties. The soil on the platform will be optimized for the survival of the plants.
Who will pay for these platforms? How about the electric utilities? Undersea cables will transport the generated power to the nearest land for distribution.
Perhaps these platforms could also generate power from ocean currents, via underwater turbines.
Someone get this idea to Obama ASAP. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!!!! So we pay a bit more for electricity... but we save the planet!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Do you deny the next ice age will come and at the end the population of our species will be much less or non existant?
Humans have already lived through several ice ages without going extinct. Why should the next one do it? Now, "civilization" might not survive, but it is hardly likely that a mere ice age would make the species itself go extinct.
The inuit, among others, have managed to survive in what amounts to a permanent ice age for at least 10,000 years here in North America, living until recently entirely off the frozen land. The main threat to continuance actually seems to be the probable ending of their local ice age due to global warming.
I doubt that even unchecked global warming would eliminate our species and would bet on homo sap still being around in ten thousand years. By then the great cull that is likely, in my opinion, to result from the warming will seem like a very minor incident in the distant path.
It is only the next few generations - our children, their children and grandchildren - who are likely to die by the hundred millions in the next couple of centuries, but for some reason I am sentimental and would prefer if we could, by intelligent foresight, avoid that contingency. But perhaps the fate of your grandchildren is not very important to you?
Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
What I find really sad is that so many people have such limited imagination, all they can use to signify a scandal is the suffix "gate".
Why not call it "WaterClimate"? Or, better yet, why not let the word Watergate rest since it is nothing more than the name of a hotel that had nothing really significant to do with the scandal in the first place?
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
What I find really sad is that so many people have such limited imagination, all they can use to signify a scandal is the suffix "gate".
Why not call it "WaterClimate"? Or, better yet, why not let the word Watergate rest since it is nothing more than the name of a hotel that had nothing really significant to do with the scandal in the first place?
Coincidentally, I just happened to have just finished watching Frost/Nixon. Excellent movie. Near the end they did make mention that perhaps Nixon's most enduring legacy will be that every major scandal that follows has the -gate suffix.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith
Its probably pretty telling that the lead 'scientist' of this research institute has stepped down and the evidence is pretty damning in these emails and the source code. Scary about them deleting/destroying data... I'm not sold that climate change isn't man made, but the more I look into this scandal, the more damning it becomes. This 'massaging' of the data is the #1 reason why I don't support groups like greenpeace. Its sad that legitimate scientists are doing the same thing.
This scandal has probably set the climate change movement back at least 20 years.
When even leftwing news such as the CBC are reporting this, you know that climate change advocates are in trouble. CBC link
LOL....duh, yes, the planet will cleanse itself of the human race. Nobody is worried about the planet surviving, it the inhabitants!
Some appear to be arguing our fate is inevitable, and we're only getting what we deserve, extinction. :o But what of the turtles and penguins! They never hurt nobody.
Hey, don't forget the dolphins! They're pretty intelligent, and very friendly, maybe more deserving of this planet than we are??? Not to mention, they kind of look something like those Roswell aliens with their smooth green skin...
Extinction of all life on this planet just because of global warming is very dubious. There are bacteria able to live near undersea volcanic vents where temps are in the hundreds of degrees. Life has adapted to very extreme conditions and some of that life will survive what comes.
Even human extinction might be unlikely. More likely just a mass die-off, with plenty of evidence left behind for any survivors or their descendants to realize what happened and why.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Seeing as how it's people who elect and re-elect governments, it is the people who hold some responsibility for the policies.
This assertion is not valid. For one thing, who are "the people"? Have you not even seen or heard the prime candidate for word of the year in 2009, "sheeple"?
Actually, both halves of the statement are correct, replacing people with sheeple: yes, it's the sheeple who elect and re-elect governments (ohhh, but wait: who is responsible for Dubya since he lost the popular vote in the 2000 election? Hmmmmm, could it be.... the Supreme Court justices????). And yes, it is the sheeple who hold some responsibility for the policies.
What's wrong is connecting the two halves.
From your context, I would guess by "the people" you mean every adult man and woman in BC of voting age. But you can't include the sheeple who voted against the government. From the voting process, they would have no responsibility for the policies of the government they voted against. As for the sheeple who voted for the government, they always end up surprised by what they get. Election promises get broken more often than not. Just last night, Jay Leno cracked a joke on his NBC show: he noted how in Obama's first year, there's been major bailouts to corporate America, the surge of troops to Afghanistan, and a few other things he's done, and the punchline was: "This is the best Republican administration we've ever had!"
Now, to my point: Democracy is truly a sham, and an effective one because the sheeple actually believe in it although they've been conned again and again. The sheeple don't realize that they have far more influence with how they spend or hoard their dollars then with who they vote for. Even if they did realize it, nothing would change. Sports arenas would still be packed with paying customers, toxic Chinese products would still fly off the shelves at WalMarts, old ByePhones would still be piled up in landfills, and on and on.
So you see, Gary, the sheeple do hold responsibility for the policies of whatever government is in power. But they hold it by virtue of HOW THEY (the sheeple) SPEND OR REFUSE TO SPEND THEIR DOLLARS.
The only exception to this could be those issues that are predominantly religious in nature -- for example, Dubya refusing any govt support for stem cell research purely because of his faith. No matter how many people pour donations of money (and embryos) into companies doing this research, Dubya would never change this policy if he presided for hundreds of years. But again, if enough people did this, govt support could be rendered redundant.
Gary:
1) Do you know of any case where a single vote has decided an entire election? Please, no small town elections!
2) Do you think the majority (or even ANY) of the sheeple who voted for Obama in November 2007 had any idea that his government was going to become a stakeholder in GM and Chrysler in order to keep those companies alive because the sheeple would suddenly shut their wallets?
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, if you really want to change anything in this world you live in, start with your spending and saving habits. If you want to convince others to join your movement for change, influence their spending and saving habits. Don't waste time trying to change people's political affiliations. Let them vote or not vote as they please.
By the way, with the recent events regarding golfer Tiger Woods (it's now pretty certain he's been fooling around for years on his supermodel wife, he's as much as admitted it), one might think that the vast numbers of sheeple who disapprove of him for this would rise up en masse and refuse to attend or even watch on TV any golf tournament in which he is a participant.
Don't bet on it. They're being called "sheeple" for a reason.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
It is only the next few generations - our children, their children and grandchildren - who are likely to die by the hundred millions in the next couple of centuries
A personal view perhaps, but I believe that sometime in this century a pandemic or two will sweep across the globe and take out as much as two-thirds of the population. Viruses are getting stronger, and people's immune systems are getting weaker. These trends are bound to intersect at some point. When the black plague took out a huge chunk of Europe's population, things changed for the better (on the whole). Not saying things would change for the better this time, but at least it would deal a blow to overpopulation.
So you see, Gary, the sheeple do hold responsibility for the policies of whatever government is in power. But they hold it by virtue of HOW THEY (the sheeple) SPEND OR REFUSE TO SPEND THEIR DOLLARS.
This is why the best government is the least government. When people start asking government to save their jobs, their way of life, they cannot be surprised when governments invade foreign countries or buy corporations in the private sector. I expect as things get worse economically, people will expect the governments to do more and more. This is only the beginning.
Consider what the US and Canadian governments are doing:
- giving people huge breaks to spend money. How many times on TV do you see someone blathering on about how you can "save" money by buying X or Y?
- setting the interest rates really (artificially) low to discourage saving.
The end result is an attempt to make people indebted and therefore less free. But again, in the short term buying item X is going to be more fun than saving for the long-term. So many people are never going to do that no matter how many times their present course leads to bankruptcy.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Saturday, 5th December, 2009, 10:03 AM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Tweet
Nobody is worried about the planet surviving, it the inhabitants!
Comment