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.
Sell a small group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit somewhat.
Sell a large group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit greatly.
Sell an enormous group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit tremendously.
Why shouldn't the people who provide the greatest services to the largest number of people become the richest people?
Millions of people shop at Walmart. Millions use Microsoft products. Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased. Amazon has delivered to millions.
The only objectionable part is where government steps in, tells the mom and pop shop (for example) they must close for Covid while Walmart stays open
.
The problem in all this is the definition -- and who gets to make the definition -- of "benefits the buyers".
Selling heroin benefits the buyers (until they die of heroin overdose).
Millions of people shop at Walmart -- and the oceans are full of the plastic junk that results.
Millions use Microsoft products -- and millions are victims of ransomware because of security holes in Microsoft products.
Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased --- that's a lot of toxic chemicals released into the environment.
Amazon has delivered to millions -- millions of small businesses shuttered as a result.
WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS BENEFICIAL?
AND SHOULD BENEFICIAL TO BUYERS OVERRIDE BENEFICIAL TO THE WORLD AT LARGE?
Capitalism and a myriad of stupid government laws stifle competition. Libertarianism with its easy access to capital for all entrepreneurs and absent government interference enables more to compete and share in the wealth, rather than wealth getting tremendously concentrated in the hands of a few...
Based on all the hoopla this weekend over the failure of Silicon Valley Bank which funds startup companies and tech companies around the world ... it looks like the era of easy money is officially coming to a VERY inglorious end.
Prepare for very bad results this week around the world ... including possibly other bank failures in a domino effect.
The reason I post this in response to the above post by Dilip is that the blame game has already begun....
TRUMP BLAMES BIDEN....
"Out-of-control Democrats and the Biden administration have pathetically continued to try to blame President Trump for their failures with desperate lies, such as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) spy balloons, the train derailment in East Palestine, and now the collapse of SVB," Trump spokesman Steven Chueng told the outlet.
but the REAL reason appears to be what Dilip is in favor of, deregulation....
Since the collapse on Friday, many have claimed that the collapse was a longer-term result of a bill Trump signed into law in 2018 that cut regulations for mid-level and regional banks, like SVB. The bill allowed banks with assets of over $250 billion to avoid mandatory oversight from the Federal Reserve that kept a check on their stability, up from the previous limit of $50 billion in assets, which was set in the wake of the Great Recession. The changes were lobbied for by many in the financial sector, including SVB CEO Greg Becker.
Looks like bad news for your beliefs, Dilip. As I have long been predicting.
The big question now is .... how bad will this get? When you pair it with inflation and rising interest rates, it really looks bad.
EDIT: whenever someone disses socialism, they mention governments what were corrupt like USSR and Cuba and Venezuela ....
well, whenever deregulation has been tried, there are CORRUPT CORPORATE ENTITIES that brought it all down ... Enron .... BP .... Lehman Bros. .... Exxon .... etc etc etc. Looks like SVB is the next loss leader LOL
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Monday, 13th March, 2023, 04:32 AM.
The problem in all this is the definition -- and who gets to make the definition -- of "benefits the buyers".
Selling heroin benefits the buyers (until they die of heroin overdose).
Millions of people shop at Walmart -- and the oceans are full of the plastic junk that results.
Millions use Microsoft products -- and millions are victims of ransomware because of security holes in Microsoft products.
Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased --- that's a lot of toxic chemicals released into the environment.
Amazon has delivered to millions -- millions of small businesses shuttered as a result.
WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS BENEFICIAL?
AND SHOULD BENEFICIAL TO BUYERS OVERRIDE BENEFICIAL TO THE WORLD AT LARGE?
Well said, Pargat. Agree 100%.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
That's nice to know we can agree on something, Peter.
The questions I asked there are the entire basis of political thought, imo. They always need answering, and the answers can change, but no matter what answers we come up with, there are winners and there are losers. There can be no perfect world.
That's nice to know we can agree on something, Peter.
The questions I asked there are the entire basis of political thought, imo. They always need answering, and the answers can change, but no matter what answers we come up with, there are winners and there are losers. There can be no perfect world.
Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth.
Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered.
Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth.
Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered.
Losers ... those impeded by you and your kind.
Your post has the odour of a personal attack of the worst kind. Care to explain yourself?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Peter - do you feel that personal attacks have increased here over the years........I do.......and I have been distressed by it.
Bob
I do feel they have but I'm not an innocent party either. I commit to trying harder to behave at CT.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
That's nice to know we can agree on something, Peter.
The questions I asked there are the entire basis of political thought, imo. They always need answering, and the answers can change, but no matter what answers we come up with, there are winners and there are losers. There can be no perfect world.
Thanks, Pargat. I like your brief, but incisive and insightful, thoughts on the complex world of politics!
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth. Neil, are you able to explain what you mean by this statement?
Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered. And by this statement.
Losers ... those impeded by you and your kind. And most especially by this statement.
Ten ten ten....
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Originally posted by Neil FrareyView Post
Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth. Neil, are you able to explain what you mean by this statement?
Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered. And by this statement.
Losers ... those impeded by you and your kind. And most especially by this statement.
I doubt Neil can explain much of anything he posts, and asking him to do so only encourages more discombobulation. To respond to him is like jumping into quicksand and then thrashing about once you are in it.
It says: The solution lies in policies that tax the excessively wealthy so that we can reinvest in critical public services like healthcare, education, and climate change mitigation.
No! Two wrongs don't make a right. The solution lies in getting rid of both Capitalism and Marxism....
LOL. I eagerly await a proper analysis of the benefits of eliminating capitalism.
Millions of poor people shop at Walmart, but criticize Sam Walton and his family for being ":excessively wealthy."
Millions of people get lot's of things done with Microsoft Windows, and criticize Bill Gates for being excessively wealthy.
It is NOT in dispute that millions of poor people benefit by shopping at Walmart.
It is NOT in dispute the millions of people get lots of things done with Microsoft Windows.
What is in question is whether it is best to let these things happen if the world's oceans fill up with plastic junk, and if ransomware enabled by slack security in Microsoft Windows allows hospitals to be totally shut down, businesses to be bankrupted, governments to be unable to process financial transactions ....
Please notice that I haven't referenced the wealth of the Walton family or the wealth of the Gates family. What I am referencing are some overall effects of the things they have created, as a consequence of their creations being designed to maximize the creator's own personal wealth(for example, the Walton's import vast quantities of cheaply manufactured plastic products from China, and Gates set it up so that his customers would be his quality control, thereby saving the huge cost of adequately testing his software products before releasing them into the world).
Perhaps it can best be summarized by asking: should the old proven adage be maintained about capitalism and free-market economics -- that the pursuit of personal wealth as a means to economic progress be encouraged -- in a world in which continued economic growth ITSELF is endangering the survival of the human species?
Here's a brief example:
Suppose we prove that N% of the world's land area need to be preserved as wetlands in order to prevent a breakdown of the world's ecology, a breakdown that would be so severe that the result would be possible extinction (let's say 80% probability via mathematical and computer models) of the human species.
Now suppose we also proved that continued economic progress GUARANTEES that we cannot preserve N% of the world's wetlands.
Do we go against the science, go against the 80% probability, and gamble on human extinction just to guarantee continued economic growth in the present moment? And who gets to make that decision? What is the decision-making process where human extinction is at stake?
I am not saying we have these numbers, but what we do have are viable and possible scenarios of human extinction, via any one of anthropogenic climate change, pandemic, systemic financial collapse leading to global depression of unprecedented proportion, nuclear war due to geopolitical pressures, ecological collapse due to overdevelopment of natural habitats, etc etc etc.
Tweet
Comment