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.
As you are surely aware, there are still millions of people in the world who believe that every word in the bible is literally true. And such people, to the extent that they are consistent, must believe that the earth is flat, and that PI is exactly equal to three point zero forever.
...
In these millions of people there are democrats like Obama and republicans like Bush. Left or right is not the main caracteristic since it is a matter of psychology of an individual.
I do not believe in any gods and I never will do. I consider it a psychological disorder. From my phychological readings I now associate religion to be in a group of 4 ways for humans to escape the stress created by society:
Anybody in any of the 4 following trends, if he quit one of these, and still need to escape, will enter in another of the 4 (automatic reaction). When you are in the religion, it is better to stay in it otherwise you will fall in: alcool-drugs, or depression or suicide. It is important to let peoples rights for religions. When you are 3 or 4 of these groups it ends very badly.
In Quebec I see less religion (3% practicing in the population), less alcoolism so there is a lot more depressions and suicides.
I believe in the main theorys of the current science and I am myself a scientist. In my opinion earth is not flat, there has been no creationism, etc.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 24th December, 2009, 12:19 AM.
In these millions of people there are democrats like Obama and republicans like Bush. Left or right is not the main caracteristic since it is a matter of psychology of an individual.
Actually, Obama is not a biblical literalist, however I said nothing about left or right.
I believe in no gods and I never will.
I will leave it as an "exercise for the student", as Capablanca used to say, to point out the obvious logical contradiction in that sentence.
That is an indictment of our educational system, of course, but that's another problem.
We do home schooling so that our kids are not in contact with socialists propaganda and to make sure they won't throw rock to those who drive big cars.
But the education system is invading mor than I expected since the Quebec government shows to my kid during their TV programs publicitys where we see a man who enters in a stranger's car, sit on the passenger seat, knock on the knee of the driver and stops the engine that was idle. A guy did it to me last year and I jump off the car as I thougt it was a robbery.
So finally, from these publicitys, my kids will receive the education you suggest anyway and they should throw rocks in a few years to those who drive big cars. National Socialism is powerful. We have cut all the Quebec channels since, we will see the result.
In Iran the government is also very big and I presume there are publicitys from the government showing a guy who get out his car to throw rocks to a young 10 years girls that is not dressed like the government want her to be.
But the data is IN on global warming, the conclusion is definite, and only the gullible and uneducated are unaware of it.
Why don't you call the climate uneducated: the "infidels". It is a real religion your propaganda here. To save the earth, eco-terrotists one day could take explosive belts to get rid of the uneducated and gulible infidels like me.
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 24th December, 2009, 12:29 AM.
I know of no degree called a "bachelor in science". I've heard of a "bachelor of science" degree, but having one of those doesn't make you a scientist, or even very knowledgeable about science.
So perhaps you could tell use what institution granted you this "bachelor in science", and what you majored in. Since you don't even seem to understand what a correlation coefficient is, one suspects that it didn't involve much math.
Since you've already been caught fibbing several times on this forum, I'm afraid I am suspicious of this alleged degree.
I know of no degree called a "bachelor in science". I've heard of a "bachelor of science" degree, but having one of those doesn't make you a scientist, or even very knowledgeable about science.
So perhaps you could tell use what institution granted you this "bachelor in science", and what you majored in. Since you don't even seem to understand what a correlation coefficient is, one suspects that it didn't involve much math.
Since you've already been caught fibbing several times on this forum, I'm afraid I am suspicious of this alleged degree.
I know what is a correllation coefficient, where did you take this? My bachelor in science had a lot of mathematics. Actually, half of the program.
What would you say about Paul Beckwith who has a Master degree (I think) and who showed us yesterday a graphic saying it was covering the year 2008. I have demonstrated yesterday that since the number 2008 was at the end of the graph, it meaned only that the graph actually covered "up to january 1 2008". Base on this do you suspect he has no master degree or do you pick only the climate deniers? Will you say he is a lyer. He sait to look on slide 10 of this.
You know, when he said that year 2008 was covered in the graph, I knew it was impossible simply because I read of lot of scientific articles and they never use 2008 data.
Tonight, I read 5 climates articles in Quebec newspapers and two science magasines and all of them refered to data from the years 2007 (they don't want to take the recovery of 2008). One article talked about the birds migration. They said "For our study we took the 2007 projection from NSIDC for the warming". This is the trick, they take the false projection (as shown in the climategate) from a big organisation. Since this projection shows falsely that for the next ten years following 2007 the ice would mostly disparear in many area of the world and temperature would go up (which they did not do in 2008 and 2009), you can imagine the catastrophic ridiculous projections they were making for the birds. So they don't lie, their projection is good if the data from NSIDC is ok but everybody knows in the scientific community that it is not the case,.... but the readers they don't. This is propaganda.
The second article, the reporter tell us that the government has to take radical decision unless, in 20 years the members of the government could be sued by an international crime against humanity court. He wants the government to stop people from taking vacations in hot countrys, driving cars, living in big houses. Pure socialim and total government control over our lifes.
And there was three other articles...
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 24th December, 2009, 12:59 AM.
... anyone who does not yet understand that the earth is definitely warming at a dangerously fast rate, and that this is almost certainly caused by human activity, is equally anti-science, or at least scientifically illiterate.
I know you don't like the comparison, and that you think you are being reasonable, but in fact you aren't and the comparison is perfectly apt.
They already are so regarded by all scientifically literate people.
It is the case, no matter how much you want it not to be.
Already done. Measurements made, results analyzed, all publicly available, conclusion compelling and no longer in reasonable doubt.
Wrong again. The only reasonable world authority on the matter, the scientific community, has already ruled. The fact that you don't accept that ruling only means that you are irrational. As, of course, we all are to some extent.
The evidence has already decided. Only a massively funded campaign by interests that continue to deny the reality out of
pure interest in money and irrational greed is putting doubt in the minds of the uneducated and gullible. The process you advocate has already happened and to repeat it would be a pointless waste.
That is an indictment of our educational system, of course, but that's another problem. Big Tobacco were able to do the same thing for decades around their poison, and big Oil will probably be able to do what they are doing now for awhile because our system is largely irrational and we fail to teach people how to think accurately and critically. Money talks, and is now shouting.
But the data is IN on global warming, the conclusion is definite, and only the gullible and uneducated are unaware of it. More is coming in every day and all of it confirms what we have already discovered.
Then you haven't been awake. I heard it on the shortwave made by an evangelist preacher just last year! The bible does in fact clearly imply that PI=3. That is it makes a series of statements that cannot all be true unless PI==3. I believe that it is in the description of the pool in Solomon's temple, but it's been awhile since I researched it and it might be somewhere else.
As you are surely aware, there are still millions of people in the world who believe that every word in the bible is literally true. And such people, to the extent that they are consistent, must believe that the earth is flat, and that PI is exactly equal to three point zero forever.
Of course, these beliefs were perfectly reasonable at the time the books were written. What is unreasonable is to believe them today when we know better.
And it is about equally unreasonable, in the present state of scientific knowledge, to deny the clear evidence of global warming caused by human beings.
Who died and made you God?
Your declaring all these things doesn't make them true. "They already are so regarded by all scientifically literate people"... this is simply a falsehood. If it were all as true and cut and dried as you make it out to be, Copenhagen wouldn't even have been necessary.
By virtue of your making these claims, I do now have to give Vlad Drkulec partial credit when he refers to climate warming believers as "religious zealots", in the sense that there is at least one such religious zealot. If Carl Bilodeau is at one extreme end of this debate, you are on the other extreme end. Just as Carl is a discredit to his own arguments, you are to yours, and I say that with no pleasure.
My not listening to shortwave and not hearing a preacher mention a Biblical teaching that the value of pi is 3.0 does not mean I'm not awake. It means I don't listen to shortware nor to preachers. Since I don't listen to preachers, I suppose now you will declare me as atheist?
Sorry, Ed, your sense of rational and irrational is.... your sense and nothing else. I'm sure you've heard of people who are so in love with another person that if that person asked them to stay out of their life, they would do it. That is the mark of true love. Please similarly withdraw yourself from this debate, if you are truly wanting the best for your side of it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Your declaring all these things doesn't make them true. "They already are so regarded by all scientifically literate people"... this is simply a falsehood. If it were all as true and cut and dried as you make it out to be, Copenhagen wouldn't even have been necessary.
By virtue of your making these claims, I do now have to give Vlad Drkulec partial credit when he refers to climate warming believers as "religious zealots", in the sense that there is at least one such religious zealot. If Carl Bilodeau is at one extreme end of this debate, you are on the other extreme end. Just as Carl is a discredit to his own arguments, you are to yours, and I say that with no pleasure.
My not listening to shortwave and not hearing a preacher mention a Biblical teaching that the value of pi is 3.0 does not mean I'm not awake. It means I don't listen to shortware nor to preachers. Since I don't listen to preachers, I suppose now you will declare me as atheist?
Sorry, Ed, your sense of rational and irrational is.... your sense and nothing else. I'm sure you've heard of people who are so in love with another person that if that person asked them to stay out of their life, they would do it. That is the mark of true love. Please similarly withdraw yourself from this debate, if you are truly wanting the best for your side of it.
Paul,
I am an "full rational center". I never will be at the right or the left since for me both lead to extremism.
But I am impress by some of your recent rational comments. I don't know what age you are but typically this is a sign of personnal evolution if I compare from the period where you were writing about Jean Hébert.
I think it is normal for someone before 30 of age to be at the left and be a socialist. Then the more we become informed, the more we develop personnal businesses, and the more we understand the world, the more we move to the rational center and quit socialism and any kind of extremism.
But when a population like we have watch a lot of sports and only superficial news then the majority stays in the left and push everything in the governments hands without knowing past errors.
USA by having so much commercial interests everywhere in the world have created the conditions so that the population is informed of the world and the whole goes in the center (alternate left and right governments give you the center).
If you take the average of "international news" of the newspapers in the world, it shows that nowhere in the world, even in dictatures and poor countrys the percentage goes under 7% of the total news. Canada is in the low 7% and this is in my sence because Quebec is the only part of the entire world to be lower than 7%. In Quebec it is actually 0.82% and most of the Canadians prime ministers of the last 50 years comes from Quebec. USA is in the top score of the world with 9% of international news in their newspapers. Low internationnal news level is a sign of extremism.
Good luck in your personnal evolution, the more you will be rational, the more you will read and the more you will discover.
If my positions seems to be extrem right for you so far, this is simply because you are so deep in the left. But if you go in the center, you will see how far the extrems are.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Thursday, 24th December, 2009, 09:54 AM.
Repeating well known and well supported facts does not in any way involve claiming to be God. That's merely your attempt to cover up your sad feelings about being out debated, I imagine. But it's just more name calling.
Your declaring all these things doesn't make them true.
Nor does your denying the clear facts make them untrue.
"They already are so regarded by all scientifically literate people"... this is simply a falsehood. If it were all as true and cut and dried as you make it out to be, Copenhagen wouldn't even have been necessary.
On the contrary, it is the widespread scientific illiteracy among the public and the politicians that made it necessary. If the people who run our countries were rational and scientifically literate it would indeed be unnecessary.
By virtue of your making these claims, I do now have to give Vlad Drkulec partial credit when he refers to climate warming believers as "religious zealots", in the sense that there is at least one such religious zealot.
I cite facts, referenced to actual data collected by actual scientists. Carl and Vlad are the religious zealots since they won't listen to facts.
All anyone has to do to change my mind on these matters is to provide actual evidence. But no one has come even close so far.
My not listening to shortwave and not hearing a preacher mention a Biblical teaching that the value of pi is 3.0 does not mean I'm not awake.
I never said it did, I merely used it as an example to show that these kinds of beliefs are still rife among powerful and dangerous people. If you had been awake and listening you would already have known about this.
Please similarly withdraw yourself from this debate, if you are truly wanting the best for your side of it.
The censorship card raises it's ugly faith. No one is forcing you to read these threads, Carl. If you want the peace of mind of avoiding me, simply skip them. That is perfectly within your power, and I certainly have on objection to your doing so.
On the other hand, if you post in a thread about climate change on a discussion forum, why are you upset when others who disagree reply to you? Why are you attempting to silence dissenting voices? Perhaps you are not as sure of your beliefs as you think you are...
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Thursday, 24th December, 2009, 12:34 PM.
Scientific literacy is one thing. Fooling the scientific community with rigged data is not prevented by literacy. Scientists need to upgrade their disinformation deflectors. They have been lied to, fooled, disinformed, and now must rethink the position based on the real data.
Bertrand Russell (prophesying re science):
“All real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation.”
“Science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know"
"... regard to credulity. To those who control publicity, credulity is an advantage, while to the individual a power of critical judgment is likely to be beneficial; consequently the State does not aim at producing a scientific habit of mind, except in a small minority of experts, who are well paid, and therefore, as a rule, supporters of the status quo. Among those who are not well paid credulity is more advantageous to the State; consequently children in school are taught what they are told and are punished if they express disbelief. In this way a conditioned reflex is established, leading to a belief in anything said authoritatively by elderly persons of importance.”
Scientific literacy is one thing. Fooling the scientific community with rigged data is not prevented by literacy. Scientists need to upgrade their disinformation deflectors. They have been lied to, fooled, disinformed, and now must rethink the position based on the real data.”
Well Larry, I'm sorry but it is actually you, in this case, who has been lied to and misinformed.
Not that scientists aren't often quite easily fooled. Lots of scientists have staked their reputations on various kinds of foolishness. The stage magician and fraud Uri Geller fooled some scientists into believing that he was demonstrating psychic powers when he was really just doing well known stage magic tricks. More recently we have Pons and Fleischman and their announcement, trivially disproven, of "cold fusion". At perhaps a slightly higher level we have the nobel laureate Linus Pauling and his erroneous claims about vitamin C, and going back further into the past, René-Prosper Blondlot and his illusory "N Rays".
No one is immune from being gulled. A prominent skeptical writer in the United States was caught in the Madoff ponzi scheme and lost a whole bunch of money. You can read about that in his article about it in "Skeptic" magazine.
And yet, somehow, science has managed to give us the world we live in today in spite of these foolish mistakes. The computer I am writing on is a pure product of the breakthroughs in Quantum Physics in the middle years of the last Century.
Take away the discoveries made by scientists in the last three hundred years and many millions of people would die quite quickly, and in some misery.
This is because, of course, scientists as a collective group have devised some pretty robust ways to sift out the nonsense that some individual scientists commit. In the case of global warming the science has been thoroughly examined by many intelligent skeptics and found to be true. Scientists try hard to prove other scientists wrong because it's the surest way to get a reputation, a good job, research grants and a nobel prize. No one, alas, has yet been able to falsify the data that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that global warming is real and almost certainly caused by the activities of humans.
One might say, to paraphrase Churchill, that Science is the very worst way of obtaining new and accurate knowledge, except for all the rest.
But in the present case of the global warming deniers it is they who have lied to you, not scientists. And the deniers writing on this board, are not even very good at is so that their denials are transparently false and can be shown to be so by a little research.
Repeating well known and well supported facts does not in any way involve claiming to be God.
I'm using the term "God" in the sense of being the ultimate authority. Would you prefer "King of the Sandbox"?
You are attempting to make yourself the ultimate authority in this debate. You claim that all scientists agree on your claims, but the evidence doesn't support that.
You have flat-out stated that what you consider the facts in this debate "already are so regarded by all scientifically literate people". That is not supported by the evidence, and it is in dispute by other rational human beings. Since you are NOT ultimate authority, you don't get your way. The dispute must be settled.
Nor does your denying the clear facts make them untrue.
Now, this is very interesting. You seem to be implicitly agreeing with my statement that you are responding to, which was "Your declaring all these things doesn't make them true." So it appears what we have here are one person (you) declaring things as fact, and you agree that you declaring them as fact doesn't make them fact. Then we have you again claiming that my denying the facts doesn't make them untrue.
If you were a criminal lawyer claiming certain things as facts, and I were a defense lawyer disputing those facts, you would not have your way. We live in a society where such disputes get settled by a court of law, and oftentimes it is a jury of citizens (agreed by both sides not to have a vested interest in the decision) who make the final decision which is then binding, unless either lawyer can show there was a misconduct of the trial.
So Ed, please explain to me why it should not be proper that your claims of facts, which ARE IN DISPUTE, should not be put to a trial? Why should your claims of facts be accepted as such just because you and SOME scientists (NOT ALL SCIENTISTS) make the claim?
Oh, and please don't use the "global conspiracy" theme again, and claim that anyone who doesn't accept the facts must be irrational and deluded by the media and other conspirators. That wouldn't fly in a court of law, and it won't fly here either.
I cite facts, referenced to actual data collected by actual scientists. Carl and Vlad are the religious zealots since they won't listen to facts.
You cannot simply state that Carl and Vlad haven't put forth evidence for their claims. Any rational reader of these threads would agree they have. What you CAN claim is that their evidence isn't fact, but your claiming it doesn't make it so, as you implicitly agreed above.
I never said it did, I merely used it as an example to show that these kinds of beliefs are still rife among powerful and dangerous people. If you had been awake and listening you would already have known about this.
I've been awake and listening and I haven't heard it. Now it seems you want to be the ultimate authority on whether I've been awake and listening. You really do have a God Complex.
The censorship card raises it's ugly faith. No one is forcing you to read these threads, Carl. If you want the peace of mind of avoiding me, simply skip them. That is perfectly within your power, and I certainly have on objection to your doing so.
On the other hand, if you post in a thread about climate change on a discussion forum, why are you upset when others who disagree reply to you? Why are you attempting to silence dissenting voices? Perhaps you are not as sure of your beliefs as you think you are...
I'm definitely not Carl, and am not attempting to censor you. What I'm suggesting is that your arguments, and your TOTAL disregard for any opinion outside of your own, taints the side of this debate you are supporting, if you could only see it. This is merely my opinion, and you are free to ignore it.
I had a much better opinion of you a month or two ago, but then I saw how you treated both J. Ken MacDonald (or McDonald?) and Gary Ruben even though they both claimed not to be totally on one side or the other of this debate. Gary has since shown to be definitely on Vlad and Carl's side, but perhaps he really wasn't before you mistreated him.
I can definitely say I'm undecided in this debate. And simply because of that, you call me irrational. The height of irony, because I have noticed it is you alone who accuses others of namecalling.
Anyway, go ahead and keep your posts coming if you must. I will read them, but I think you only continue to do a disservice to your side of the debate by posting them.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I
You cannot simply state that Carl and Vlad haven't put forth evidence for their claims. Any rational reader of these threads would agree they have. What you CAN claim is that their evidence isn't fact, but your claiming it doesn't make it so, as you implicitly agreed above.
Now you are claiming the right to rule on what is rational and what is not, so I don't know why you object when I say that something is irrational.
Anything I say about climate science is in doubt, because I am not a climate scientist. What the climate scientists believe is certainly not in doubt. Well, if you want to know what the climate scientists believe you should go to them, not to what uninformed folks like Carl say they believe.
Well, when it comes to believing the local deniers, or actual scientists, I know who I pick. So take a read of the Royal Society web site and see if that will convince you that actual scientists do have a consensus opinion on the matter or not. This is the same Royal Society that included Sir Isaac Newton as one of it's earliest fellows, and Stephen Hawking as one of it's current ones.
Now when the Royal Society says "Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. " is that or is that not evidence that there is a scientific consensus on the matter?
Wishing everyone a happy Yule, now that the north pole has once again begun to swing back toward the sun.
Tweet
Comment