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.
It was tried out. What we got was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and a host of other dictators.
That wasn't Marx's communism, read the communist manifesto, the dictator has to fall and the government dissolves into a utopia where people are their own government, that is atleast Marx's theory.
The communism that has been tried out is just a variation of Fascism with minor differences.
Umm, technically speaking, yes it would. The Koran talks about how the followers of Moses, Jesus and Mohamed all have their place in heaven.
Just a quibble, nothing more.
I don't mind a friendly quibble. Let me quibble back. The Ahlah of the Koran appears to be very different than the Ahlah of, say, Al-Qaeda. Just as many so called "Fundamentalist Christians" pretty clearly have a rather different idea of who Jesus was than, for instance, Paul or John.
Of course, Pascal's wager fails mathematically under Baysean statistics as well.
That wasn't Marx's communism, read the communist manifesto, the dictator has to fall and the government dissolves into a utopia where people are their own government, that is atleast Marx's theory.
I read it. Central planning is doomed to fail. It always has and it always will.
Initially Marx purported to be scientific and made predictions based upon his science. His predictions failed miserably and so he revised his theory to make it unfalsifiable. It is no surprise that someone taken in by AGW fraud would be enamoured of marxism as the AGW is just a way for the fools that want to meddle and control our lives to justify the draconian ideas they want to implement.
The communism that has been tried out is just a variation of Fascism with minor differences.
Marxism's brand of communism requires a perfect man. That is not my claim, that is the claim of the Marxists. Let me know when he arrives. There is no such thing and never will be.
I read it. Central planning is doomed to fail. It always has and it always will.
Initially Marx purported to be scientific and made predictions based upon his science. His predictions failed miserably and so he revised his theory to make it unfalsifiable. It is no surprise that someone taken in by AGW fraud would be enamoured of marxism as the AGW is just a way for the fools that want to meddle and control our lives to justify the draconian ideas they want to implement.
Marxism's brand of communism requires a perfect man. That is not my claim, that is the claim of the Marxists. Let me know when he arrives. There is no such thing and never will be.
I don't love communism, I just find it interesting, in the same way I find religions/Gods interesting doesn't mean I believe in either.
AGW-doesn't have any draconian ideas all the deniers want to do is delay the inevitable and making it worse in the process...
What is your education background in science. Please let the readers know what science background you have; apart from Star Trek reruns...
Hey, I learned a lot from those reruns! I know all about the Prime Derivative!
(Yeah, yeah, I know it's really called the Prime Directive. But like they say in Spinal Tap, "our amps go to 11". So I repeat: I know all about the Prime Derivative! :D)
Not only that, I have learned how to combine some of the things I've learned. For example, I might be the only person to think up this new futuristic technology: "dilithium crystal flux capacitor". :D
I am also the inventor of the "ultrasonic muffler". :D
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...
Are you serious? You can't even blame the science for these mistakes? The science needs to be good enough to be able to PREDICT side effects PRECISELY. Anything less means the science is invalid and should not be depended on. All these commercials for this and that drug, warning about possibly fatal side effects for something designed to clear up your sinuses.
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.
Again, you hold the science blameless (for continuing use of highly inefficient internal combustion engines). Yet I tell you this: if there were a technology somewhere out there that would give us non-polluting vehicles that could immediately replace what we have now, with no serious side effects, that technology would become public. It is precisely the money aspect that would make this happen. If someone will risk their life bungee jumping or parachuting, someone will risk their life to be the next Bill Gates and make this technology public. It ain't happening because it ain't out there. Science cannot solve the problem.
Some problems are chaotic and cannot be predicted. Read the interesting book on "The man who predicts earthquakes" for some of the science.
Finally, a chink in the armour of science. I submit to you that climate change is exactly one of these problems that are chaotic and cannot be predicted. How can you refute this? All climate change has are theories. The train of evidence needs to have a million million cars, and instead it's got a few dozen.
Another way to think of it: climate is weather stretched out in time. Weather is unpredictable and chaotic. In terms of climate change, predicting the total melting of the polar ice caps in something like say 100 years is like predicting 12 inches of rain in Las Vegas in the next few minutes. Even if you can point to radar images showing some large clouds gathering over parts of Nevada, you can't know how much rain will hit a small area like Las Vegas nor how long any rain might last there nor when any such rain might begin to fall. As I've pointed out before, 100 years is a microsecond in geological time. Trends we are observing now could reverse as easily as a trend of coin tossing bringing up heads. Even long time stock market gurus, with all their technical knowledge and raw computing power, cannot say for certainty that a market trend will continue.
This is where I have my dispute with climate scientists, that they think they can say for certainty that such and such will happen. At least Adam Cormier was smart enough to give it a probability of happening and nothing more.
The question then becomes: what should humans as a species do based on some probability of some disasterous event? Regarding AGW, I will post more on this in response to one of Adam Cormier's posts.
Just the other day, I watched an episode of the History Channel's show, "The Universe". The topic was solar magnetic storms. One could hit Earth directly, and it could happen at a precise time when the Earth's magnetic field is in the processing of "flipping" (magnetic North Pole becoming magnetic South Pole, and vice versa). Scientists have evidence that this flipping does happen every so often, can't remember the number. The last one was 780,000 years ago, way above the statistical average, so we are overdue. No one knows how long the flipping takes, and how weak the magnetic field gets while the flipping is occurring. So, a flip might occur sometime during our lifetime, it might last days or even weeks, during which there is little or no magnetic field protecting Earth, and a solar magnetic storm might hit Earth directly during this time. The consequences of such would definitely be millions upon millions, perhaps billions, of human deaths, because all electricity would be lost due to blowout of transformers worldwide. There would be no electricity nor running water in the developed world. The electricity could not be turned back on, the transformers would be unrepairable. To manufacture one electric transformer takes 6 months time (according to the show). Based on all this, should we spend gazillions of dollars replacing our electric infrastructure so that transformers could be made safe against this threat? The probability of such an event is quite high, relatively speaking. But those gazillions of dollars wouldn't buy us a better electricity system, just a safer one. So as you can imagine, no one is proposing to do anything about it.
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.
No, YOU are confused about the concept of "empty space". It's not that you find lots of empty space, it's that you find NOTHING BUT empty space. Maybe you should replace the concept of scale with the concept of imagination.... and faith.
It sounds like you have supernatural faith; can you recommend some good books in this area to chesstalkers?
Sylvia Browne's "Life On The Other Side". Pretty much explains everything.... but still requires a large degree of faith. It even explains WHY we need to have that faith.
Also a non-Sylvia Browne web site that reinforces her teachings:
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.
Paul, about 2 weeks before your posting with the carbon nanotubes cartoon, you wrote on this board that you would soon be posting your idea of a solution to AGW. The cartoon was the only thing I saw from you that resembled such a solution. If you had, or have, a more serious solution, please direct us all to it. If you have no solution at all, then I repeat my suggestion that you just like playing Chicken Little.
Your greatest weakness, it seems, is that you often jest without giving anyone any idea that you are jesting. Some people WOULD think the name Vlad is purely Russian, and you might be one of those people. How are we to know?
Maybe you should take a trip to Harlem, start tossing the N word around, and when the blood starts gushing out, tell everyone you were just kidding.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Finally, a chink in the armour of science. I submit to you that climate change is exactly one of these problems that are chaotic and cannot be predicted. How can you refute this? All climate change has are theories. The train of evidence needs to have a million million cars, and instead it's got a few dozen.
Another way to think of it: climate is weather stretched out in time. Weather is unpredictable and chaotic. In terms of climate change, predicting the total melting of the polar ice caps in something like say 100 years is like predicting 12 inches of rain in Las Vegas in the next few minutes. Even if you can point to radar images showing some large clouds gathering over parts of Nevada, you can't know how much rain will hit a small area like Las Vegas nor how long any rain might last there nor when any such rain might begin to fall. As I've pointed out before, 100 years is a microsecond in geological time. Trends we are observing now could reverse as easily as a trend of coin tossing bringing up heads. Even long time stock market gurus, with all their technical knowledge and raw computing power, cannot say for certainty that a market trend will continue.
They predicted an active hurricane season this year. Hasn't happened.
The idea behind that is hurricane's in the Gulf of Mexico close down oil and gas production and drive up the commodity prices. People buy ETF's on those commodities and make money. I don't participate in such speculation of disasters to drive up prices.
Don't be knocking stock market gurus, because Garu did pretty good in during the last big dump. :)
I hope your joking, Glenn Beck has to be on the same level of intelligence as Sarah Palin.
They sure seem to be stirring things up for Obama's 2010 mid-term elections. I have been thinking about getting a copy of Sarah Palin's book but have been pretty busy and have been a bit slow reading non-chess related books. Slow for me anyway. Hard to find time when you are playing chess almost every weekend.
They predicted an active hurricane season this year. Hasn't happened.
The hurricane expert that wrote the section on IPCC's report tried to get his name stricken from the report because the final conclusion was changed to be quite opposed to what the research actually showed. They wouldn't do it. I guess they still consider him part of the consensus.
They sure seem to be stirring things up for Obama's 2010 mid-term elections. I have been thinking about getting a copy of Sarah Palin's book but have been pretty busy and have been a bit slow reading non-chess related books. Slow for me anyway. Hard to find time when you are playing chess almost every weekend.
Playing chess seems like a much more interesting alternative and better use of your time then reading Palin's book.
That is the problem in America, FOX is actually having an effect on politics, Obama was so scared of them, that he fired a woman when a part of her speech was taken out of context by fox and friends. Why are they listening to FOX?
Playing chess seems like a much more interesting alternative and better use of your time then reading Palin's book.
That is the problem in America, FOX is actually having an effect on politics, Obama was so scared of them, that he fired a woman when a part of her speech was taken out of context by fox and friends. Why are they listening to FOX?
Probably because they perceive that the other networks are so deeply into their own agenda that they won't report the news if it doesn't coincide with the media's prejudices. The blow back from this loss of trust has been devastating to the mainstream media since their revenue is based on a rapidly dwindling viewership. FOX on the other hand doesn't seem to have much trouble attracting viewers.
Probably because they perceive that the other networks are so deeply into their own agenda that they won't report the news if it doesn't coincide with the media's prejudices...
And FOX doesn't do the same thing? They gave a million dollars to the republican party( a few days ago) and during the healthcare debate would only show citizens who were against it, not very fair and balanced if you ask me. I'm not defending the other media outlets but FOX news is just as bad if not worse. It can hardly be considered news. Some of their viewership has to be people laughing at Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, or one of the other crazies on FOX news.
The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are just as credible as FOX news and they're comedy shows.
I've actually recently been listening to BBC news, it seems pretty good.
Last edited by Adam Cormier; Thursday, 26th August, 2010, 09:03 PM.
Some of their viewership has to be people laughing at Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, or one of the other crazies on FOX news.
I like Glenn Beck. I liked him on CNN and I like him on Fox. CNN has tanked since they got rid of Beck. Hannity has some credibility problems and seems to be a bit more partisan than Beck and O'Reilly for that matter. I think Beck plays well to middle America, especially right of centre believers which I suspect make up a majority of the American public.
The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are just as credible as FOX news and they're comedy shows.
I don't watch either of those shows. I didn't find them all that funny. The daily show can have its moments but not enough to justify the waste of time.
Tweet
Comment