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.
You don't have a PH.D in physics. You have no degree in climate change. Only informal study. Yet you want ME to pay megabucks to support something on which you personally don't appear to be qualified to make expert pronouncements. Unless these days any student expects to be taken seriously.
Would you explain to Super Bob what a PH.D in physics is worth without completing the thesis or obtaining the degree? I'm losing patience with the lad. :)
A master's degree in physics is still pretty impressive, and even though he doesn't have the Ph.D(which he should try to get in the future, but he is probably extremely busy in other courses currently) he still has alot of the same knowledge someone with a Ph.D would have because of the courses he took. Again, it all comes down to who is the more qualified to make a conclusion about this issue, Paul Beckwith is obviously more qualified then anyone on the deniers side.
I have studied nuclear physics and I did some lab work in the McMaster reactor years ago. I also did bifuelling simulation studies on CANDU reactors for Ontario Hyrdro one summer; lots of FORTRAN coding...I am not looking for more topics to debate with you; I do like seeing your financial/stock posts...
Of course, the CANDU is different from the light water reactors. Whatever happened to the enviromentalists opposition to nuclear? They used to be firmly opposed to nuclear but I haven't heard much on it recently. Has the view changed now?
Did you know at least a couple of the nuclear reactor complexes have natural gas?
I wrote that financial stuff as entertainment, as I used to point out. I actually bought the stocks I said I had and still have some of them.
I have made some comments but don't really feel like doing anything in depth. As an example, when there were some posts on the U.S. dollar going to H*ll in a handbasket I commented it was the world reserve currency and I doubted it. Since then we've seen the problems with the Euro. I could tell you some of the stuff I bought but you probably aren't interested. Maybe the only one you'd be interested in is ATS Automation with their solar division. It's probably a 2 or 3 year hold. I like the divisions they have.
I'm also an addicted penny stock player so I bought a whack of shares in a BC paper company. It's one I play back and forth. This time, if they can stay afloat, I should make a lot on it.
Still, there's the mid term elections in the U.S. and possibly an election in Canada so the economy will likely be reasonable through the end of the year, in my opinion. Looks like a good time for an election. Lots of issues coming up recently. Prisons, crime bill, gun registry (again), immigration laws, census. I figure the ticket is to pick a hot button topic and get on the popular side.
I figure after the U.S. mid term election it will be interesting to see how Obama defines the last half of his mandate. Jobs has to be a very high priority. He might lose both the house and senate in the mid terms.
And he provides links to articles by people who actually are climate scientist doing actual research in the topic.
Unlike the Three Hypocrites.
At least my views are consistent with promoting industry, manufacture and jobs in Canada, both union and non-union.
I don't support voodoo science which will end up forcing jobs out of the country and putting people out of work.
If you're really concerned about pollution and jobs buy shares in some industries which concern you. Then email them or phone and express your views. I've found companies reply.
At least my views are consistent with promoting industry, manufacture and jobs in Canada, both union and non-union.
No, I don't think they are. They will lead to bad consequences for everthing on that list, just as they have been for the past thirty years or so.
I don't support voodoo science which will end up forcing jobs out of the country and putting people out of work.
No, you support denial of real science based on nothing but your own short sited predjudices. Scientists do not put people out of work, they put people to work doing science. Many governments, however, misuse science to their own irrational and damaging ends. An intellient response to the fact that the globe is warming and fossil fuels are either too dirty to use or fast running out would actually create far more jobs.
Not that jobs are the be all and end all of life. A truly successful capitalism would eliminate the need for work altogether and, if it doesn't destroy itself first, might end up doing that yet. Ironically, a truly successful capitalism would in the final result be indistinguishable from socialism.
If you're really concerned about pollution and jobs buy shares in some industries which concern you. Then email them or phone and express your views. I've found companies reply.
I would rather invest in society and it's success than what is today a pathological financial system which may yet destroy us all, thanks. Of course I am invested in the system whether I like it or not, as I do live on a pension which is so invested.
People like you want to prop up a system that is clearly failing badly and in extreme danger of destroying itself.
Well, I'd like to prop it up for awhile too, at least long enough for it to change so that it can sustain itself for the long run.
The CANDU is interesting in that it can be refueled on the fly by pushing a new fuel bundle in one tube and a used bundle pops out the other end. An advantage over shutting down a light water reactor for months to refuel. Of course you need a nice supply of heavy water to run the CANDU.
Environmentalists are of mixed feelings about nuclear now. Some like Lovelock have changed their views 180 degrees. Most are probably still against it.
I did not know about the natural gas at some reactor sites; I suppose that it is to provide some rapid start up/shut down capability so the nuclear reactor output can stay relatively constant; the reactor cannot be started up too quickly after its power is greatly reduced.
I will look at ATS; I have not done much stock trading lately.
Not that jobs are the be all and end all of life. A truly successful capitalism would eliminate the need for work altogether and, if it doesn't destroy itself first, might end up doing that yet. Ironically, a truly successful capitalism would in the final result be indistinguishable from socialism.
Yeah. Without those jobs where would the union leaders get the dues which provide so much?
Yes, I guess capitalists are eliminating the need to work. They move their jobs out of the country, make product elsewhere and ship it back. Even governments are buying from foreign manufacturers because of such things as pricing concerns.
So, Canada is now shipping raw materials again and buying finished product. Selling natural resources and once again moving back to the more intense branch plant economy of years ago.
Of course, if a socialist doesn't want to work he doesn't have to work. There will be lots to take his place.
The CANDU is interesting in that it can be refueled on the fly by pushing a new fuel bundle in one tube and a used bundle pops out the other end. An advantage over shutting down a light water reactor for months to refuel. Of course you need a nice supply of heavy water to run the CANDU.
Environmentalists are of mixed feelings about nuclear now. Some like Lovelock have changed their views 180 degrees. Most are probably still against it.
I did not know about the natural gas at some reactor sites; I suppose that it is to provide some rapid start up/shut down capability so the nuclear reactor output can stay relatively constant; the reactor cannot be started up too quickly after its power is greatly reduced.
I will look at ATS; I have not done much stock trading lately.
Remember that I'm not pushing stocks. Make sure you do your own checking as I'm down a bit on that one right now. Industrial capital spending is down these days. It's simply one I like and have.
I thought a light water reactor was only refuelled about once every 18 months. It sounds like a good time to do maintainance work as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada ended up with some of the light water reactors because of pricing.
Not sure what the natural gas was used to do. I didn't ask questions.
Not surprising some have changed their views on nuclear. I guess they are better for the environment. It will be interesting to see how Russia supplying Iran with enriched uranium for their reactor will work out. The U.S. has been buying from Russia under the megatons to megawatts program and I'm wondering if this will cut down on the amount of SWU's available to the U.S. Probably they will decide to go ahead with a new centrifuge plant for making the SWU's.
Nearly the entire scientific community thinks that ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is occurring rapidly and needs to be dealt with....
...I think it is only fair that we all come clean about our science background.
What we have here is a philosophy that says, only those with certain scientific credentials are entitled to proclaim what is going on in our world, and thus, to direct political policy. Everyone else just shut up and pay up.
Yet:
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials are putting prescription drugs on the market that eventually have to be recalled because they have side effects that kill people.
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials are incapable of improving automobile gas mileage by more than about 5 to 10 mpg within a 10 year time frame, nor can they invent a new fuel that can outperform gasoline and still be affordable, nor can they invent a new propulsion system that improves on the anemic efficiency of internal combustion engines, nor can they figure out how to run automobiles on hydrogen affordably and safely.... and on and on and on....
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials can't predict when the next big earthquake is going to happen
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials don't know how life began
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials, people who DO have PhD's in Physics, tell us that our material world, when you get down to the sub-sub-atomic level, is made of.... NOTHING!
It's amusing to see Adam Cormier talking up scientific facts, while simultaneously dismissing supernatural faith. Adam, how do you feel about the fact that a hard, solid metal ball bearing you can hold in your hand is made of NOTHING? Yet it reflects light so that you can see it, it resists your efforts to squeeze it flat, and if you swallow it, it will come out looking the same as it went in. You must accept it's existence on faith, because your scientists will tell you that according to their science, it's not really there! Sure, it will break a window if you throw it hard enough, but the window isn't really there either!
Based on all the above, I don't think we should turn everything over to scientists. Scientific facts don't come close to common sense. How much common sense does Paul Beckwith have? Based on things like his Vlad = Russian pronouncement, or his carbon nanotubes blowing us farther away from the sun, his faith in recent weather patterns that support a theory that is barely a microsecond old in geological time, and many other miscues and logical fallacies, I don't think much.
But that doesn't mean I deny AGW. Even scientists can get lucky.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
It's amusing to see Adam Cormier talking up scientific facts, while simultaneously dismissing supernatural faith.
Yeah, priests invented everything that the scientists were only pretending to invent. We invented computers by reading the instructions in the bible. Sure...
What we have here is a philosophy that says, only those with certain scientific credentials are entitled to proclaim what is going on in our world, and thus, to direct political policy. Everyone else just shut up and pay up.
What is your education background in science. Please let the readers know what science background you have; apart from Star Trek reruns...
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials are putting prescription drugs on the market that eventually have to be recalled because they have side effects that kill people.
Drug companies put their products on the market after many years of tests; occasionally some bad ones are pushed through for various reasons, mostly non-scientific...
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials are incapable of improving automobile gas mileage by more than about 5 to 10 mpg within a 10 year time frame, nor can they invent a new fuel that can outperform gasoline and still be affordable, nor can they invent a new propulsion system that improves on the anemic efficiency of internal combustion engines, nor can they figure out how to run automobiles on hydrogen affordably and safely.... and on and on and on.....
This has nothing to do with the science or engineering. It has everything to do with politics, money, and the desire to maintain the status quo by those in charge of both the companies and the government.
> people with similar exalted scientific credentials, people who DO have PhD's in Physics, tell us that our material world, when you get down to the sub-sub-atomic level, is made of.... NOTHING!.
This is entering the realm of philosophy; you are welcome to enlighten us more in this area.
It's amusing to see Adam Cormier talking up scientific facts, while simultaneously dismissing supernatural faith. Adam, how do you feel about the fact that a hard, solid metal ball bearing you can hold in your hand is made of NOTHING? Yet it reflects light so that you can see it, it resists your efforts to squeeze it flat, and if you swallow it, it will come out looking the same as it went in. You must accept it's existence on faith, because your scientists will tell you that according to their science, it's not really there! Sure, it will break a window if you throw it hard enough, but the window isn't really there either!.
You are confused about the concept of scale. On human scales, the ball is most certainly there. Magnify scales enough and you can find lots of empty space. It sounds like you have supernatural faith; can you recommend some good books in this area to chesstalkers?
Based on all the above, I don't think we should turn everything over to scientists. Scientific facts don't come close to common sense. How much common sense does Paul Beckwith have? Based on things like his Vlad = Russian pronouncement, or his carbon nanotubes blowing us farther away from the sun, his faith in recent weather patterns that support a theory that is barely a microsecond old in geological time, and many other miscues and logical fallacies, I don't think much.
But that doesn't mean I deny AGW. Even scientists can get lucky.
Nobody has suggested that "we should turn everything over to scientists". However you seem to think that you know more science than "scientists". Do you know more medicine than "doctors". Or more cooking than "chefs".
I have plenty of common sense and a sense of humor. Thus my Vlad = Russian joke and my cartoon on carbon nanotubes; how could anyone possibly take this seriously. Unfortunately you cannot see much humor in things. With weather patterns I will repeat that climate change models predict increases in frequency of severe weather events relative to long term averages; which is what we see happening. Do a Google search yourself to read the latest on this.
If you are really interested in the subject of climate change audit a course at the nearest university on the topic; I think that you would find it interesting.
Some problems are chaotic and cannot be predicted. Read the interesting book on "The man who predicts earthquakes" for some of the science.
Scientists, unlike religionists, do not claim to know anything absolutely. Unlike religionists and most politicians they admit to areas of ignorance. In fact they are careful to specify exactly the extent of their likely ignorance.
A scientist will not measure the position of a star and say "it is exactly here", as a religionist would. Rather they will measure it's position many times and in the end say only something like "I am 95% confident that it is within x seconds of arc of here". The religionist, however, claims absolute knowlege that cannot, so they say, possibly be wrong.
And yet it was the scientists, not the religionists, who gave us, for example, the equations that allow us to send objects to the furthest regions of the solar system and arrive pretty well dead on.
I have yet to notice, although I have read it from cover to cover, any graviational equations in the Christian bible. Perhaps someone more observant than I could tell me at what chapter and verse these equations are in the bible.
Drug companies put their products on the market after many years of tests; occasionally some bad ones are pushed through for various reasons, mostly non-scientific...
(some stuff left out)
Nobody has suggested that "we should turn everything over to scientists". However you seem to think that you know more science than "scientists". Do you know more medicine than "doctors". Or more cooking than "chefs".
I can't lay an egg but I know a bad one when I smell or/and taste one. Maybe Paul knows bad science when he reads it.
I'm certainly not against science. Currently I have invested in a company which is working on a drug for the treatment of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) that affects the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. They also are working on other brain disorders but I don't think the drugs are as far advanced. For this one they will do final testing later this year, as far as I know. Probably I've written about this one before because I've been supporting it for several years.
I don't mind investing in science but the science has to make sense to me.
Unless it disagrees with him, that is. Then it has to be wrong of course.
I don't mind investing in science but the science has to make sense to me.
There goes quantum theory which makes sense to no one, but which is completely necessary to design the Nuclear Fission reactors that he has talked up from time to time in this thread.
Quantum theory made no sense to Einstein, or to Feynman, both Nobel winners for physics. Feyman said " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
Oh no...a fundamentalist, do you also believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Evolution is wrong, and intelligent design(creationism in disguise) is correct? The bible is the inerrant word of God? All other religions are pathways to hell? Do you speak to your imaginary friend on a regular basis? Or do you believe the whole universe was created just for us?
Paul Bonham:
Where to begin....
Yeah, my problem with religion/God is not the 'faith' thing(although i'd go with facts and evidence over blind faith and belief any day), it is the stupidity of it all. God is very very evil in the bible he commits unjustified atrocities and religion seems to be just another way for people to build armies and slaughter each other(only in this case it is over who has the best imaginary friend) and a way to gather money(always an inspiration). It's much easier to believe that a metal ball that I'm physically holding in my hand is real, rather then some omnipotent(omnipotence is impossible in the first place) being that created the universe in 6 days, and watchs us every moment of our lives and even though no one has never seen him he is real(some people claimed to actually be God), and you can build a connection with him by praying, but its like your always getting his messaging machine because you never get an answer back, even on the simplest of questions(do you exist? for example), and the lunacy goes on and on.
Dawkins put it best, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
So even if God did exist(highly unlikely if not flat out impossible) I doubt any sensible human would want it too.
The devil kills 10 people in the bible, God kills millions...(in reality neither killed any, but the followers of God sure did)
But if you must have a religious explanation to global warming, read the book of revelations, one of the signs of the end times is an increase in temperature due to one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse or some garbage like that.
In the end I'd rather side with the scientists then the priests, God and religion is not needed in the 21st century we should be beyond it by now.
"A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss is a fantastic lecture delving into the beginning of the universe(without God) and why God is running out of places to hide.
Dawkins fantastic term for the Christian God, 'The God of the gaps' is the perfect way to describe the divine, whatever science can't yet explain God(pick which ever one you want, Thor, Krishna, Allah, Yahweh, etc...) wedges himself nicely into the whole, the more scientific advancements the less hiding places, until there is nowhere else left to hide and religion is finally busted(the mythbusters Jamie and Adam, both skeptics said in an interview they wanted to do an episode busting religious myths but the discovery network wouldn't allow it).
Tweet
Comment