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.
Currently according to EKOS, they are at 31.5 percent, six tenths of a percent ahead of the Liberals at 30.9 percent. That would likely result in a Liberal minority if it held up until election day, because the Liberal vote is generally more efficiently distributed.
That says nothing about what an election result would be a couple of years from now, of course, but it certainly isn't evidence for a Conservative majority any time soon.
But then a week is a long time in politics and so one should, if one is concerned about one's predictive reputation, be careful about predicting the results a couple of years from now.
The Cons drop in the polls has to be credited to Harper's prorogation of parliament. The Grits have done nothing themselves to improve their standing this way.
According to one NDP pundit I heard, apparently a rule in politics is that most voters forget about something that comes up if six weeks pass after the effect of it ends. So I expect the Cons to recover and get a strong majority, like Gary, as I wrote in my 2010 predictions thread.
Life is less fun (or less scary) if no one sticks their neck out and makes uncertain predictions. Take global warming, for example. Then again, that prediction may cost real money, rather than save it, if global warming is false.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Here is a more balanced link, relatively free of the oh so obvious spin from the Fox news site.
If you definition of 'balanced' is "what I agree with" then that site is balanced.
Right from the title of the site "Skeptical Science - getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" you know that the site is written from a specific slant. I wouldn't trust Fox News either, but that 'balanced site' might as well be a link to Al Gores books.
It's a commitment for ten years in the future, 2020. The current USA GDP in 2008 was just over 14 TRILLION dollars, and at a 2% rate of growth it will be 17.75 TRILLION by 2020, when the commitment kicks in. A hundred billion dollars amounts to 0.56% of the 2020 GDP. Most of this will be spent in the USA where it will contribute to stimulating the economy.
The 2010 "defense" budget in the USA is already at $680 billion per year, nearly 7 times Clinton's promise for 2020, and if amortized at the same rate of 2% will be over 800 billion by 2020, or more than 8 times the 100 billion promised for climate change abatement. And of course the US defence budget is already mostly just waste.
So, a promise of 12.6% of the probable defense budget, ten years in the future.
Oh, and 100 billion is also around one tenth of the money already spent to bail out the big banks, the total cost of which may exceed $4 trillion according to a story by CNN published here. A hundred billion is 2.5% of four trillion.
Those figures, while impressive, aren't as important as how the American voter feels about them. Your 2008 figures are missing the hugh cash infusion of 2009. The American people are worried about such things as job loses, not being able to afford their mortgage payments and debt repayments. They don't appear to be interested in such large cash give aways and bailouts.
The analysis I have for the end of 2009, and it's not something I did myself, shows the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP was around 60%. I'm working from a bar graph so can't be more exact than that. By contrast, the percentage for Canada is slightly less than 30% (from the bar graph). Italy runs slightly over 110%. Germany around 70%.
The American public is right to be worried.
I don't project the future the same way you are doing, which might be why I spotted the last crash when others did not. They also did not project the large cash infusion of the recent year or two when they made those kind of projections 10 years ago.
In any case, the Dems lost a senate seat which should have been an automatic. Obama could well end up losing the Senate majority rather than simply worrying about having lost the 60% super majority.
By the way, I don't have the luxury of refusing to read things like Fox news releases. I read both right wing and left wing publications to get an idea of what is happening.
Currently according to EKOS, they are at 31.5 percent, six tenths of a percent ahead of the Liberals at 30.9 percent. That would likely result in a Liberal minority if it held up until election day, because the Liberal vote is generally more efficiently distributed.
That says nothing about what an election result would be a couple of years from now, of course, but it certainly isn't evidence for a Conservative majority any time soon.
But then a week is a long time in politics and so one should, if one is concerned about one's predictive reputation, be careful about predicting the results a couple of years from now.
I didn't predict the results a couple of years from now. I said within the next 9 months. Read it again as it's clear.
If you want to predict a Liberal majority, tell me where the seats are likely to come from. Do you think Harper will lose his Alberta power base? In Ontario the provincial liberals are unpopular and it will likely carry over to the federal party if that election comes first. I can see the Cons having a decent shot at winning the riding I live in which has been strongly liberal. Unless Danny Williams in Newfoundland once again asks his province not to vote Conservative they will likely pick up two or three seats there. I can see them picking up some seats in Quebec or at the least holding their own.
I really expect to see the Conservatives with a stronger minority government or possibly a majority. In a minority the other parties could form a coalition to govern but with the libs, ndp and pq involved it would be messy.
I figure if B.C. can afford the green policies then good for them. If only business would stop the tax revolts...
By the way, the debt as a percent of GDP number I used in the other post were attributed to the IMF.
Those figures, while impressive, aren't as important as how the American voter feels about them.
Well, that is obviously true, but sad. It will cause much unnecessary pain and poverty since the American voters feelings are being subjected to a relentless propaganda barrage to keep them ignorant of reality. However, how the electorate feels does not change the reality of what actually is.
The analysis I have for the end of 2009, and it's not something I did myself, shows the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP was around 60%.
That is true, and the right way to talk about the debt is as a percentage of GDP, but it has in fact been a lot higher in the past, especially after WWII, and a reasonably well run economy was able to grow that debt away reasonably quickly.
Many people have debts that, in comparison with their incomes, is far higher than that. It is common for people to buy houses by assuming a debt far in excess of their annual income, for instance. Debt by itself is not scary, what counts is debt vs. ability to pay, including one's assets. Businesses commonly run far higher debts than the US government currently does.
The American public is right to be worried.
True, except they are worried about the wrong things.
I don't project the future the same way you are doing, which might be why I spotted the last crash when others did not.
I spotted it too. A blind pig could see it coming.
But I didn't "project the future" at all in my last post.
By the way, I don't have the luxury of refusing to read things like Fox news releases. I read both right wing and left wing publications to get an idea of what is happening.
I read both right and left wing publications myself, but Fox is not merely right wing, it is crazy. It is possible for a rational person to be a conservative, but Fox is not conservative, it is out of touch with the real world.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Thursday, 21st January, 2010, 07:28 PM.
If you want to predict a Liberal majority, tell me where the seats are likely to come from.
What makes you think I'd like to predict a Liberal minority? I didn't predict one, I merely said that IF the latest poll figures were reflected in an actual election (rather unlikely IMO) a Liberal minority was more likely than a Conservative one.
I think that, if conditions continue more or less as they are now, a Conservative minority is the most likely outcome of the next election, but that is not a prediction, merely a projection of current trends. A projection is not a prediction.
I will predict that, unless something very surprising and unusual happens fairly soon, the Conservatives will never get a majority with Harper leading them. But I wouldn't put up any money.
What insults and crude stuff? You brought up those publications and I asked questions to determine your familiarity with your sources.
If you think I'm being unfair, go cry to the moderator. Let him tell you debating lessons aren't free.
Its been another bad day for the global warming crowd. We can add Canada to the ever-growing list of countries and regions whose raw data have been subjected to tampering or willful cherry picking of data in order to support the increasingly dubious global warming hypothesis.
Add to this, the admission that the only science in the UN report on climate change was science fiction as they just made up the "fact" that the Himalayan glaciers would all be gone in thirty years without any science to back that claim.
Meanwhile the level of ozone and other pollutants drifting to Canada from Asia mean that we can't meet our own clear air standards anymore. They promise to emit less carbon dioxide though.
Well, that is obviously true, but sad. It will cause much unnecessary pain and poverty since the American voters feelings are being subjected to a relentless propaganda barrage to keep them ignorant of reality. However, how the electorate feels does not change the reality of what actually is..
Reality is whatever the voters want it to be. Politicians who don't relaize this don't last long.
I read both right and left wing publications myself, but Fox is not merely right wing, it is crazy. It is possible for a rational person to be a conservative, but Fox is not conservative, it is out of touch with the real world.
Except for the hugh popularity of Fox compared to some of the other popular news sources. I've met plenty of left wing crazies over the years.
I noticed there seemed to be a few types of people who were union members. Those who would vote to accept any contract offer. Those who voted based on the merit of the offer. Those who always voted against a contract because they only seemed to be interested in the breakdown of the system. These days it seems big unions own pieces of companies.
What makes you think I'd like to predict a Liberal minority? I didn't predict one, I merely said that IF the latest poll figures were reflected in an actual election (rather unlikely IMO) a Liberal minority was more likely than a Conservative one.
I think that, if conditions continue more or less as they are now, a Conservative minority is the most likely outcome of the next election, but that is not a prediction, merely a projection of current trends. A projection is not a prediction.
I will predict that, unless something very surprising and unusual happens fairly soon, the Conservatives will never get a majority with Harper leading them. But I wouldn't put up any money.
Based on how Canada has done during the current economic downturn, I won't be voting to change the government. I think Harper has done enough to have earned another term. I'll be voting for him. In case you're wondering, I've never voted conservative provincially and only a couple of times federally. This time I'll be voting for them in both elections.
Based on how Canada has done during the current economic downturn, I won't be voting to change the government. I think Harper has done enough to have earned another term. I'll be voting for him. In case you're wondering, I've never voted conservative provincially and only a couple of times federally. This time I'll be voting for them in both elections.
I comfort myself with the realization that outliers like you and I don't matter very much. Harper, to my mind, has done nothing but harm and many people are out of jobs because of he and his ilk. But like you, I am an outlier.
Reality is whatever the voters want it to be. Politicians who don't relaize this don't last long.
Political reality is often at complete odds with actual physical reality. It is physical reality which will have the last word and the only question really is whether our political reality will wake up to the truth before it is too late. I'm still an optimist.
Did you make money from your sharp eye and keen knowledge of economics? We know many pensions plans lost a bundle and you saw it coming.
I made, with the help of many others, a small but important increase in my salary because of a strike that I was the leader of. I judged that the real disaster would be about a year in the future, and that turned out to be right.
I was fortunate enough to have arranged my working life so that my good fortune would not depend directly on a market bet. But that was a decision I did not make for any economic reason.
My pension plan was well run and lost very little relative to many others. It has enough funds on hand to meet all it's liabilities and then some. Which is a good thing from my viewpoint because I am currently one of those liabilities. This may have something to do with the quality of the Union representatives on the board of our particular plan.
I am also the beneficiary of a wise housing decision made by my parents thirty years ago when they sold their house and joined the cooperative housing association of which I am their successor member, and consequently my rent is much lower than it might otherwise be.
Except for the hugh popularity of Fox compared to some of the other popular news sources. I've met plenty of left wing crazies over the years.
So have I, but I worry very little about them because they are not in power and have little prospect of power, whereas the right wing crazies often are.
So have I, but I worry very little about them because they are not in power and have little prospect of power, whereas the right wing crazies often are.
Are you saying the left wing crazies run unions and the right wing crazies run nations?
The mid term senate elections are this year in the U.S. Something like 34 seats to be elected. The Dems have already lost the super majority in the senate with that shocker in Mass. They have a really good chance of losing the simple majority.
The policy is out of whack with what the people want. That 100 Billion dollar committment of taxpayer money for climate control was a wakeup call for the masses. A political bombshell.
I guess the people have to decide if the can afford the democrats now they've had a look. The U.S. is a country where the people don't want a one dollar coin to replace the greenback.
B.C. is going to have some problems if the economy takes much more time to come around. Particularly lumber and paper. The companies seem to be paying too much property tax and combined with high wages are not profitable. I imagine some towns will lose their mills and it will trickle down to their employees and works projects.
I guess the winter Olympics is throwing off a lot of part time jobs.
I comfort myself with the realization that outliers like you and I don't matter very much. Harper, to my mind, has done nothing but harm and many people are out of jobs because of he and his ilk. But like you, I am an outlier.
Speak for yourself. Actually, I'm pretty representative of the general population.
Many people are out of jobs because corporations can't afford the high wages and taxation of local jurisdictions. That's the reason so many companies are outsourcing jobs outside the country to keep themselves competitive.
Besides, the opposition parties like Harper. They keep voting to support his government and legislation. Particularly his budgets. No point in voting for the budget and then criticising it.
Many people are out of jobs because corporations can't afford the high wages and taxation of local jurisdictions.
Utter stuff and nonsense of course.
That's the reason so many companies are outsourcing jobs outside the country to keep themselves competitive.
No, it's because an incompetent Federal government doesn't understand finance and is doing all the exact right things to make the disaster even worse than it is, for instance keeping the external exchange rate on the Canadian dollar far too high.
Besides, the opposition parties like Harper. They keep voting to support his government and legislation. Particularly his budgets. No point in voting for the budget and then criticising it.
This could be a text book example of a simple non sequiter. That last sentence just shows you don't comprehend how parliamentary democracy works. Hardly surprising in a person with such an apparent unquestioning faith in big business, I suppose.
Tweet
Comment