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.
I am open to explanations that I have yet to find anyone that can answer, including hard-core climate scientists.
A youtube video of a student with a mellifluous voice does not cut it.
No Sid, I do not believe you are open to explanations, data, opinions, evidence, that are contrary to your viewpoint.
I can't see debating you to be in any way productive. It would be a complete waste of my time.
Bob A. has invited everyone to post articles, videos, opinions, on both sides.
That is what I am doing. I am happy to leave it to the audience to draw their own conclusions.
So here is another interesting video from CBC. Enjoy.
No Sid, I do not believe you are open to explanations, data, opinions, evidence, that are contrary to your viewpoint.
I can't see debating you to be in any way productive. It would be a complete waste of my time.
Bob A. has invited everyone to post articles, videos, opinions, on both sides.
That is what I am doing. I am happy to leave it to the audience to draw their own conclusions.
So here is another interesting video from CBC. Enjoy.
Again, I have no interest ion debating you, refuting your arguments, or responding to your insults.
Have a nice day.
I listened to the video. It is quite an eye-opener to see the CBC actually promoting censorship of opposing views under the guise of "misinformation." Of course, you said that opposing views should be banned in. this thread. Well, Bob, no wonder you don't want to debate me but instead censor me. Please take your fascist approach elsewhere. If you don't like free speech protected under the charter of rights, then move to North Korea or China! Oh wait I forgot that Trudeau has already sold out this country to the CCP.
Throughout history, evil has never lasted, and I am optimistic this unconstitutional approach won't in Canada either.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 14th March, 2023, 11:35 AM.
I listened to the video. It is quite an eye-opener to see the CBC actually promoting censorship of opposing views under the guise of "misinformation." Of course, you said that opposing views should be banned in. this thread. Well, Bob, no wonder you don't want to debate me but instead censor me. Please take your fascist approach elsewhere. If you don't like free speech protected under the charter of rights, then move to North Korea or China! Oh wait I forgot that Trudeau has already sold out this country to the CCP.
Throughout history, evil has never lasted, and I am optimistic this unconstitutional approach won't in Canada either.
Blah, blah, blah! Quite a few "straw men" in here! You post like you are a tad unhinged....are you?
As some of you know, I live part-time in a rural agricultural area. For many reasons, control mechanisms used by farmers have been cut back (Agricultural and livestock), usually due to health danger or pollution or climate change and biodiversity issues. In the Southern Georgian Bay Region, the powers that be have put in place reasonable alternatives for the farmers, though they are usually not quite as effective as the banned practices.
It seems that in the Netherlands, there is being offered no reasonable alternative. The government plan, to which it is sticking, is to slash nitrogen emissions. It is clearly proven that they are harmful to biodiversity. The government answer is to dramatically reduce livestock numbers and buy out thousands of farms. I am unsure if there is also as part of this plan, banning of any currently-used fertilizer.
I agree that this is not the general transition phase we see with a lot of negative climate change restrictions being brought in. It is basically an attack on "farming" as a major green-house gas source.
This is quite dubious from my knowledge of the sources for the non-porous atmospheric canopy that has been slowly enveloping the Earth for some years now.
It seems that the argument that livestock production is a very inefficient way to feed the planet (As opposed to Veganism), and a climate change problem, has not been raised that much yet. On the other hand, there is regular distress at good farmland being put to other uses (Like highways).
It does seem to me that there needs to be some restraint imposed, but it seems that there is no Phase-in plan for farmers who wish to continue farming.
It does seem to me that there needs to be some restraint imposed
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Wow, Bob!
First take away the farmers' animals, forcing everybody to become a vegan, and then take away their fertilizers, starving the vegans... Is that what you are suggesting?
1. I don't think we should be taking any farmland out of production.
2. I don't think we should be clear cutting forests for animal farming.
3. There should be incentives to farm organically because cash crop farming is both more efficient, and more productive per person, and has less negative impact on the climate.
4. There are "natural green fertilization" systems that are almost as good as the problematic chemical fertilizers. In the transition, a hybrid regime is necessary to give the farmers time to change over (Farmers are resistant to any type of oversight or cramp on their freedom, in my limited view at ground zero - generous to a fault, but quite ornery when unhappy).
1. I don't think we should be taking any farmland out of production.
2. I don't think we should be clear cutting forests for animal farming.
3. There should be incentives to farm organically because cash crop farming is both more efficient, and more productive per person, and has less negative impact on the climate.
4. There are "natural green fertilization" systems that are almost as good as the problematic chemical fertilizers. In the transition, a hybrid regime is necessary to give the farmers time to change over (Farmers are resistant to any type of oversight or cramp on their freedom, in my limited view at ground zero - generous to a fault, but quite ornery when unhappy).
Better?
Bob A
Yes, certainly better. The best would be that if there is definite evidence that the farmers are currently polluting the environment, an appropriately corresponding pollution penalty can be applied on that, and they may on their own accord switch to less polluting resources... that would be the Libertarian way of governing...
The problem with Libertarian dynamics is that the fine must be sufficient to make the activity no longer lucrative..........people don't change, usually, to do the right thing at the expense of their profiteering. So if the fine is sufficiently hefty, the target will scream "oppression; loss of freedom", just as under general legal regimes.
So if the fine is sufficiently hefty, the target will scream "oppression; loss of freedom", just as under general legal regimes.
Bob A
Of course they will and they should! Why should the penalty be anything more than proportional to the crime, especially when we are dealing with something like pollution? You do not want oppression and loss of freedom under the guise of justice, do you?
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 19th March, 2023, 01:20 PM.
Why should the penalty be anything more than proportional to the the crime, especially when we are dealing with something like pollution? You do not want oppression and loss of freedom under the guise of justice, do you?
I am still trying to understand the concepts in the Libertarian philosophy. Your last post, greatly concerns me, but if you will indulge me a hypothetical question.
Let's say the USA elects a Libertarian government, and they adopt a Libertarian philosophy of limited government and no regulation, as it would limit the freedom of business to operate as they see fit. But of course, the Libertarian policy of no aggression etc would settle grevances.
Now let's say there is a train derailment, like that of East Palestine, Ohio.
What happens?
We have citizens suffering physical harm, possibly deaths, certainly medical expenses. The toxic pollution causes possible long term suffering, shortening of life expectancy and quality of life. There would be economic harm, short term costs of displacement, and long term economic costs, such as lowering of home values. I was wondering what "proportional to the crime" justice we could expect from a Libertarian society?
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 19th March, 2023, 01:07 PM.
I am still trying to understand the concepts in the Libertarian philosophy. Your last post, greatly concerns me, but if you will indulge me a hypothetical question.
Let's say the USA elects a Libertarian government, and they adopt a Libertarian philosophy of limited government and no regulation, as it would limit the freedom of business to operate as they see fit. But of course, the Libertarian policy of no aggression etc would settle grevances.
Now let's say there is a train derailment, like that of East Palestine, Ohio.
What happens?
One of the ways of dealing with 'unavoidable' mishaps (and these are very common in the practice of medicine), is that the victims have to be fully compensated by the individual/company performing the activity which leads to the mishap. It would certainly drive up the price of performing that activity, but so be it...
Originally posted by Bob Gillanders
I am still trying to understand the concepts in the Libertarian philosophy. Your last post, greatly concerns me, but if you will indulge me a hypothetical question.
Let's say the USA elects a Libertarian government, and they adopt a Libertarian philosophy of limited government and no regulation, as it would limit the freedom of business to operate as they see fit. But of course, the Libertarian policy of no aggression etc would settle grevances.
Now let's say there is a train derailment, like that of East Palestine, Ohio.
What happens?
One of the ways of dealing with 'unavoidable' mishaps (and these are very common in the practice of medicine), is that the victims have to be fully compensated by the individual/company performing the activity which leads to the mishap. It would certainly drive up the price of performing that activity, but so be it...
Does this mean that it is part of the Libertarian philosophy to not only cut regulations, but to also somehow SIMPLIFY legal judgements against parties? In other words, to avoid long trials and just point a finger and say "YOU are responsible, YOU pay!" and be done with it?
So in the case of a train derailment as bad as the one Bob G. described, let's say it's due to a train engineer falling asleep at the wheel, and the engineer claims he fell asleep because he was working overtime hours beyond what should be reasonably expected due to no regulations, and the Libertarian government will do what? Just avoid a trial and arbitrarily decide the rail company is at fault?
You say this will "drive up the price" of performing business activities and "so be it" .... LOL!!!! How about making many business activities GO AWAY COMPLETELY because the risk of being held at fault for "unavoidable mishaps" makes it too risky to even perform the activity? No insurance company will cover rail delivery of toxic chemicals if rail companies are going to be summarily convicted of being at fault for every "unavoidable mishap" in an environment where the rail companies have no regulations to restrict their business practices!
Such simplistic thinking .... which is so easily refutable because it just CANNOT work! Quite frankly, I find Libertarian philosophy the most laughable I have ever come across.
Earth to Hit Critical Warming Threshold by Early 2030s, Climate Panel Says
A new U.N. report says it is still possible to hold global warming to relatively safe levels, but doing so will require global cooperation, billions of dollars and big changes.
“There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).”
This is the most striking sentence in a 37-page summary, issued today, of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It tells us what’s possible. It tells us the stakes.
Tweet
Comment