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.
The cheapest way to reduce overall energy use is still to increase efficiency, I believe. Much can be done by simply better regulating the way appliances are designed.
I suspect that will also save the most union jobs in Canada as well.
It doesn't much matter if we like nuclear energy plants. That's what we'll get. A plant to supply the nuclear fuel to light water reactors probably costs more than 4 billion. They produce SWU's for the reactors. Those wouldn't be built if there were no demand. In fact, at least one plant already has long term contracts for the fuel and the plant has not yet been approved.
With the coal plants, that's in 2025. How many of todays politicians do you suppose will still be there? I'd call it a maybe for shutting those things down. I'd imagine a lot will be switched to natural gas depending on the fuel prices.
I'd expect China to build a lot of nuclear electric generating plants.
China is also building a LOT of coal fired electric generating plants. Hence my contention that if global warming is happening and if it is anthropogenic in origin then we just have to get used to it because China is not in the mood to deindustrialize.
I don't think that the AGW crowd has done the math. Windmills and solar power can only take you so far until they put one on every building and that probably won't be enough to supply the required power. You still need nuclear power if you are going to shut down any of the coal fired plants.
You don't seem to understand that we ARE going to run out of non-renewable energy sources eventually and when we do we will be even more dependent on them then we are now if we continue the way we have been going.
You're right. I don't understand that we are going to run out of non-renewable energy sources eventually.
Environmentalists have been predicting that for a long time. Oddly enough the supply of "non-renewable" energy sources keeps going up. In the seventies the Club of Rome was claiming that we had a twenty year supply. Forty years later we probably have another sixty year supply (I haven't looked at this in a couple of years so it may be more) with more being found all the time.
Ed is right that we have to become more efficient and that is partially how we managed to make it this far without running out despite all the doom and gloom of the seventies.
This would completely devastate civilization. OR we could slowly shift over to non-renewable energy sources so that when we run out of fossil fuels and the like it won't completely shatter our standard of living. So yes we will take a hit on our standard of living(depending on the rate of change I suppose), but think how much worse it will be in 100 years when the fossil fuels run out, you plan is just delaying the inevitable and making it worse in the process.
It is very difficult for him defending a clearly losing proposition (AGW). Its amazing that he managed maintain his composure as long as he did.
Maybe in the public's eye because of delusion, media/political controversy, ignorance, education level(low), etc...
But much like how religion is abundant and accepted in the public's eye, in the highest levels of academia a completely different story is true. In the public the controversy of AGW is alive and thriving.
but at the educated level...
97% of climatologists believe that humans have significantly contributed to global warming.
in addition to this
85% members of academia are non-religious, agnostic, or atheistic.
So the public's position on many topics are contradicted by those of the educated. So yeah the average joe can believe that AGW is suffering theoretically, while the scientists will continue trying to provide proof to deaf ears.
China is also building a LOT of coal fired electric generating plants. Hence my contention that if global warming is happening and if it is anthropogenic in origin then we just have to get used to it because China is not in the mood to deindustrialize.
I don't think that the AGW crowd has done the math. Windmills and solar power can only take you so far until they put one on every building and that probably won't be enough to supply the required power. You still need nuclear power if you are going to shut down any of the coal fired plants.
I think you are severely underestimating the energy provided through wind and solar energy sources. Plus those are only two of many renewable energy sources that can also provide alot of energy(geothermal for example).
It is very difficult for him defending a clearly losing proposition (AGW). Its amazing that he managed maintain his composure as long as he did.
Even many who support that religion will have to consider how changes will effect their financial situation and jobs. We saw here in Ontario the uproar over the eco fee which had to be scrapped by the government.
If the government doesn't want pollution here, and companies have to stop producing here, they will simply move offshore and jobs, many union represented, will be gone. So will the spinoff jobs and the tax base.
Speaking of lower energy consumption, weights and measures used to allow +/- 1.25% to 1.50% error on the metering and probably still do because it's not exact. I'd expect the majority of gas and electricity meters are running about 1% fast if the entire population of meters was to be tested. To pick up a 2% saving simply set the meters 1% low. It's still within the allowable but the revenue and consumption would be less.
Maybe in the public's eye because of delusion, media/political controversy, ignorance, education level(low), etc...
But much like how religion is abundant and accepted in the public's eye, in the highest levels of academia a completely different story is true. In the public the controversy of AGW is alive and thriving.
[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
but at the educated level...
97% of climatologists believe that humans have significantly contributed to global warming.
You keep saying that but the facts seem to indicate otherwise.
in addition to this 85% members of academia are non-religious, agnostic, or atheistic.
Your source for this claim?
So the public's position on many topics are contradicted by those of the educated. So yeah the average joe can believe that AGW is suffering theoretically, while the scientists will continue trying to provide proof to deaf ears.
There is a very good reason that those ears are deaf. See the story of the boy who cried wolf.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Thursday, 19th August, 2010, 11:36 PM.
China is also building a LOT of coal fired electric generating plants. Hence my contention that if global warming is happening and if it is anthropogenic in origin then we just have to get used to it because China is not in the mood to deindustrialize.
I don't think that the AGW crowd has done the math. Windmills and solar power can only take you so far until they put one on every building and that probably won't be enough to supply the required power. You still need nuclear power if you are going to shut down any of the coal fired plants.
China uses a lot of our Thermal Coal and also our metalurgical coal in their steel furnaces. It provides a lot of jobs here in Canada. These days I drive past some industrial places where I used to do service work. The last one I noticed was not only not there anymore but the building had been levelled to the ground. Tax on vacant land is less.
A lot of the power cells for solar is made offshore. Although, the program here in Ontario is supposed to make a lot of jobs. One company is building a plant in Ontario and will be making jobs but they are trying to sell their solar division. Maybe you know the company to which I'm referring. I don't know if the solar program will survive a change of government next year. The price we are paying for the electricity if very high.
I'd suspect there will also be natural gas fired electric plants but how economical they are will depend on the cost of natural gas.
Even many who support that religion will have to consider how changes will effect their financial situation and jobs. We saw here in Ontario the uproar over the eco fee which had to be scrapped by the government.
I heard that they were planning on sneaking it back in later.
If the government doesn't want pollution here, and companies have to stop producing here, they will simply move offshore and jobs, many union represented, will be gone. So will the spinoff jobs and the tax base.
This is something that I don't understand. How are these policies sustainable when you will be looking at 25% unemployment if they were to be implemented.
Speaking of lower energy consumption, weights and measures used to allow +/- 1.25% to 1.50% error on the metering and probably still do because it's not exact. I'd expect the majority of gas and electricity meters are running about 1% fast if the entire population of meters was to be tested. To pick up a 2% saving simply set the meters 1% low. It's still within the allowable but the revenue and consumption would be less.
Hmmmmm.... Why settle for 1%. We could set them 18% low and hit the targets that have been proposed without having to do anything. :p
You're right. I don't understand that we are going to run out of non-renewable energy sources eventually.
So Vlad apparantly believes that the Earth is infinite in size. Probably thinks we live on the surface of an infinite plain. After all Scientists believe the Earth is finite in size and approximately spherical, so they must be wrong. It's all a conspiracy you know.
Hmmmmm.... Why settle for 1%. We could set them 18% low and hit the targets that have been proposed without having to do anything. :p
The numbers I gave are within the legal limit. 18% is not. In the case of such a large amount the funds have to be returned to the consumer or the utility, depending on who has lost on the error.
China uses a lot of our Thermal Coal and also our metalurgical coal in their steel furnaces. It provides a lot of jobs here in Canada. These days I drive past some industrial places where I used to do service work. The last one I noticed was not only not there anymore but the building had been levelled to the ground. Tax on vacant land is less.
A lot of the power cells for solar is made offshore. Although, the program here in Ontario is supposed to make a lot of jobs. One company is building a plant in Ontario and will be making jobs but they are trying to sell their solar division. Maybe you know the company to which I'm referring.
I have read about several companies that they are trying to entice into the Windsor area. The thing that I don't get about solar power generation is why Moore's law doesn't seem to apply as it seems to apply in every other area touched by technology. Is it because of the government subsidies?
I don't know if the solar program will survive a change of government next year. The price we are paying for the electricity if very high.
It will go higher if they keep overpaying for solar and wind projects. I wonder if people are ready to change governments.
I'd suspect there will also be natural gas fired electric plants but how economical they are will depend on the cost of natural gas.
Sam Pickens is quite convinced that we should move massively towards natural gas. If that happens, the price should go up.
It seems to me that our local economy is picking up in Windsor. I drive by and look at a number of empty buildings and fantasize about the ones that would make good chess tournament halls and humungous super-chess clubs. I had a mental list of about ten suitable properties on bus routes with lots of parking, high ceilings near restaurants and services and about seven of the ten have been rented or bought up in the last month or so. Rather jarring to my chess fantasies. I guess we'll have to build.
Tweet
Comment