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.
Vlad; I am interested to know if you accept this scientific work/analysis or reject it; are you a tsunami denier also. Or do you just cherry pick the science that you want to accept and that which you want to reject.
Paul Bonham; I think that I will leave the philosopy up to you and stick to the science; I enjoy your posts; they usually involve some thinking unlike Vlad who just cuts and pastes and is blinded by ideology. Is Vlad really a medical doctor; does he not use equipment that has been thought up by scientists?
Gary, you may want to invest in tuna futures (if such a thing exists) since a lot of tuna is caught of the east coast of Japan, and since they are near the top of the food chain they may end up with concentrations of radioactivity. Perhaps you will also cherry pick the science that you want to accept; accepting that which can make you a buck or two...
Ontario is doing great on this front with the Energy Act but the rest of Canada needs to step up to the plate or be left behind...
We can see how well Ontario has been doing by the exponential rise in electricity costs under the Liberal government and the degradation of the power grid with brownouts and momentary drops in power which were once a rare occurrence but now are regular events.
Au contraire. Slight rise in cost that was going to occur in any event (with moving to a smarter grid with smart meters; you are mixing those costs with the Energy Act renewable program). Much more resilient power grids will result. Drops? The only drop is in the quality of your posting; the power grid folks still aim for 99999 (99.999% of uptime). Just remember, the only people that had power during the ice storm were the folks getting it from solar panels...
Is Vlad really a medical doctor; does he not use equipment that has been thought up by scientists?
I'm sure Vlad uses equipment thought up by doctors. I have nothing but respect for real scientists. Phony climate scientists who make up data and then destroy the evidence, well that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Respect for real scientists? You are totally against real scientists if they decide to examine climate change. Most people that study climate change are people from many different disciplines; in fact almost all disciplines. Have you read the medical reports from physicians who write on the negative health effects of climate change?
Now we are getting at the root of your misguided philosophy. You cherry pick the scientists that you accept and reject the ones that say things you do not like to hear. No evidence is destroyed, it is all available to the public. What planet are you on?
I know math is difficult for you but if you pay 20 times what something is worth and that something is 1% of production how much will your costs go up?
Math has always been one of my top subjects. Why do you always ignore the massive subsidies that are built into the price of fossil fuels. Your 20x multiplier is simply not valid when you compare apples to apples. You must also realize that things are more expensive and then price plummets with economies of scale as production methods improve and efficiency improves.
This posting is from Nov 29, 2009. Your so called climategate has been examined over and over by multiple independent panels and every single scientist has been exonerated from nefarious activity. You are grasping at straws. These stories are old news. Almost all climate change work that is done now puts the data as open source; why would any scientist want to provide ammunition to deniers of your ilk; there is nothing to hide. You have no concept as to how science operates...
Vlad, the author of your times article is not a squeaky clean guy, perhaps you can find something better; he has a history of bogus articles, misrepresenting scientists, the list goes on and on.
Note to chesstalk readers: always google the authors of Vlads links and you can easily see the poor quality of his references.
The data is still deleted. You said it wasn't deleted. Did the multiple "independent" panels (who were composed of individuals who stood to profit from the gravy train) manage to undelete the data? Didn't think so. There is no truth in you.
In most real scientific endeavours most scientists are more than happy to turn over data so that other scientists can verify their results. Not so with climate scientists at East Anglia university who did everything they could to obscure their data, hide the evidence, delete emails, illegally stonewall freedom of information requests, delete evidence and obscure how they arrived at their conclusions. The phony whitewashes notwithstanding, they did huge damage to your cause, so much so that it will never recover. HTH.
Vlad, the author of your times article is not a squeaky clean guy, perhaps you can find something better; he has a history of bogus articles, misrepresenting scientists, the list goes on and on.
Note to chesstalk readers: always google the authors of Vlads links and you can easily see the poor quality of his references.
Since your definition of squeaky clean is to drink the kool aid offered without question, I guess he's not. You seem to be changing the subject. The data is still deleted and fudged. Interesting article on the computer code used to lend an air of respectability to the faked data.
a) the author has no credibility
b) the article does say that the CRU moved the labs, changed their computers, and some raw data from the 80s was not saved, does not sound like a crime to me
c) the multiple independent panels were composed of scientists outside the field as well as polititians, lawyers, etc.
d) there is no gravy train for scientists. A lot of the work is being done by postdocs and graduate students who would make more money working full-time at Walmart or McDonalds; this gravy train idea is totally bogus, a favourite parrot line of climate change deniers like yourself
e) real scientific endeavours, were the atmospheric scientists who studied the ozone hole real scientists; a lot of them are the same people now studying climate change. So they were ok in the 1980s, but now now. Your logic is flawed.
f) The East Anglia folk were under no big conspiracy,as you repeatedly say. You even use the same jargon, mix it up a little. You do everything you can to obscure the science of climate change, you ignore the evidence, have you never deleted and email before. Illegally stonewall, every independant commision shows this did not happen. Climate change is not my cause; the climate is my area of study. Will never recover, don't you think that depends on the climate now and in the future. Climate does not care about your wacky ideas...what is HTH again...
Tweet
Comment